Bill C-59 (Historical)

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures

Part 1 implements income tax measures and related measures proposed or referenced in the April 21, 2015 budget. In particular, it
(a) reduces the required minimum amount that must be withdrawn annually from a registered retirement income fund, a variable benefit money purchase registered pension plan or a pooled registered pension plan;
(b) ensures that amounts received on account of the new critical injury benefit and the new family caregiver relief benefit under the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act are exempt from income tax;
(c) decreases the small business tax rate and makes consequential adjustments to the dividend gross-up factor and dividend tax credit;
(d) increases the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1 million for qualified farm and fishing properties;
(e) introduces the home accessibility tax credit;
(f) extends, for one year, the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors;
(g) extends, for five years, the tax deferral regime that applies to patronage dividends paid to members by an eligible agricultural cooperative in the form of eligible shares;
(h) extends until the end of 2018 the temporary measure that allows certain family members to open a registered disability savings plan for an adult individual who might not be able to enter into a contract;
(i) permits certain foreign charitable foundations to be registered as qualified donees;
(j) increases the annual contribution limit for tax-free savings accounts to $10,000;
(k) creates a new quarterly remitter category for certain small new employers; and
(l) provides an accelerated capital cost allowance for investment in machinery and equipment used in manufacturing and processing.
Part 2 implements various measures for families.
Division 1 of Part 2 implements the income tax measures announced on October 30, 2014. It amends the Income Tax Act to increase the maximum annual amounts deductible for child care expenses, to repeal the child tax credit and to introduce the family tax cut credit that is modified to include transferred education-related amounts in the calculation of that credit as announced in the April 21, 2015 budget.
Division 2 of Part 2 amends the Universal Child Care Benefit Act to, effective January 1, 2015, enhance the universal child care benefit by providing $160 per month for children under six years of age and by providing a new benefit of $60 per month for children six years of age or older but under 18 years of age.
It also amends the Children’s Special Allowances Act to, effective January 1, 2015, increase the special allowance supplement for children under six years of age from $100 to $160 per month and introduce a special allowance supplement in the amount of $60 per month for children six years of age or older but under 18 years of age.
Part 3 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 enacts the Federal Balanced Budget Act. That Act provides for certain measures that are to apply in the case of a projected or recorded deficit. It also provides for the appearance of the Minister of Finance before a House of Commons committee to explain the reasons for the deficit and present a plan for a return to balanced budgets.
Division 2 of Part 3 enacts the Prevention of Terrorist Travel Act in order to establish a mechanism to protect information in respect of judicial proceedings in relation to decisions made by the designated minister under the Canadian Passport Order to prevent the commission of a terrorism offence or for the purposes of the national security of Canada or a foreign country or state. It also makes a related amendment to the Canada Evidence Act.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Industrial Design Act, the Patent Act and the Trade-marks Act to, among other things, provide for extensions of time limits in unforeseen circumstances and provide the authority to make regulations respecting the correction of obvious errors. It also amends the Patent Act and the Trade-marks Act to protect communications between patent or trade-mark agents and their clients in the same way as communications that are subject to solicitor-client privilege.
Division 4 of Part 3 amends the Canada Labour Code to increase the maximum amount of compassionate care leave to 28 weeks and to extend to 52 weeks the period within which that leave may be taken. It also amends the Employment Insurance Act to, among other things, increase to 26 the maximum number of weeks of compassionate care benefits and to extend to 52 weeks the period within which those benefits may be paid.
Division 5 of Part 3 amends the Copyright Act to extend the term of copyright protection for a published sound recording and a performer’s performance fixed in a published sound recording from 50 years to 70 years after publication. However, the term is capped at 100 years after the first fixation of, respectively, the sound recording or the performer’s performance in a sound recording.
Division 6 of Part 3 amends the Export Development Act to add a development finance function to the current mandate of Export Development Canada (EDC), which will enable EDC to provide development financing and other forms of development support in a manner consistent with Canada’s international development priorities. The amendments also provide that the Minister for International Trade is to consult the Minister for International Development on matters related to EDC’s development finance function.
Division 7 of Part 3 amends the Canada Labour Code in order to, among other things, provide that Parts II and III of that Act apply to persons who are not employees but who perform for employers activities whose primary purpose is to enable those persons to acquire knowledge or experience, set out circumstances in which Part III of that Act does not apply to those persons and provide for regulations to be made to apply and adapt any provision of that Part to them.
Division 8 of Part 3 amends the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act to, among other things, provide that the Chief Actuary is not permitted to distinguish between members of either House of Parliament when fixing contribution rates under that Act.
Division 9 of Part 3 amends the National Energy Board Act to extend the maximum duration of licences for the exportation of natural gas that are issued under that Act.
Division 10 of Part 3 amends the Parliament of Canada Act to establish an office to be called the Parliamentary Protective Service, which is to be responsible for all matters with respect to physical security throughout the parliamentary precinct and Parliament Hill and is to be under the responsibility of the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons. The Division provides that the Speakers of the two Houses of Parliament and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness must enter into an arrangement to have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police provide physical security services throughout that precinct and Parliament Hill. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 11 of Part 3 amends the definition “insured participant” in the Employment Insurance Act to extend eligibility for assistance under employment benefits under Part II of that Act, while providing that the definition as it reads before that Division comes into force may continue to apply for the purposes of an agreement with a government under section 63 of that Act that is entered into after that Division comes into force. It also contains transitional provisions and makes consequential amendments.
Division 12 of Part 3 amends the Canada Small Business Financing Act to modify the definition “small business” in order to increase the maximum amount of estimated gross annual revenue referred to in that definition. It also amends provisions of that Act that relate to eligibility criteria for borrowers for the purpose of financing the purchase or improvement of real property or immovables, in order to increase the maximum outstanding loan amount.
Division 13 of Part 3 amends the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act to extend the application of that Act to organizations set out in Schedule 4 in respect of personal information described in that Schedule.
Division 14 of Part 3 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to require the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada to disclose designated information to provincial securities regulators in certain circumstances.
Division 15 of Part 3 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to
(a) clarify and expand the application of certain provisions requiring the collection of biometric information so that those requirements apply not only to applications for a temporary resident visa, work permit or study permit but may also apply to other types of applications, claims and requests made under that Act that are specified in the regulations; and
(b) authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to administer that Act using electronic means, including by allowing the making of an automated decision and by requiring the making of an application, request or claim, the submitting of documents or the providing of information, using electronic means.
Division 16 of Part 3 amends the First Nations Fiscal Management Act to accelerate and streamline participation in the scheme established under that Act, reduce the regulatory burden on participating first nations and strengthen the confidence of capital markets and investors in respect of that scheme.
Division 17 of Part 3 amends the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act to
(a) add a purpose statement to that Act;
(b) improve the transition process of Canadian Forces members and veterans to civilian life by allowing the Minister of Veterans Affairs to make decisions in respect of applications made by those members for services, assistance and compensation under that Act before their release from the Canadian Forces and to provide members and veterans with information and guidance before and after their release;
(c) establish the retirement income security benefit to provide eligible veterans and survivors with a continued financial benefit after the age of 65 years;
(d) establish the critical injury benefit to provide eligible Canadian Forces members and veterans with lump-sum compensation for severe, sudden and traumatic injuries or acute diseases that are service related, regardless of whether they result in permanent disability; and
(e) establish the family caregiver relief benefit to provide eligible veterans who require a high level of ongoing care from an informal caregiver with an annual grant to recognize that caregiver’s support.
The Division also amends the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act as a consequence of the establishment of the critical injury benefit.
Division 18 of Part 3 amends the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act to, among other things, provide that the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act do not apply with respect to records and copies of records that are to be destroyed in accordance with the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act. The non-application of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act is retroactive to October 25, 2011, the day on which the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act was introduced into Parliament.
Division 19 of Part 3 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Cooperative Credit Associations Act to modernize, clarify and enhance the protection of prescribed supervisory information that relates to federally regulated financial institutions.
Division 20 of Part 3 authorizes the Treasury Board to establish and modify, despite the Public Service Labour Relations Act, terms and conditions of employment related to the sick leave of employees who are employed in the core public administration.
It also authorizes the Treasury Board to establish and modify, despite that Act, a short-term disability program, and it requires the Treasury Board to establish a committee to make joint recommendations regarding any modifications to that program.
Finally, it authorizes the Treasury Board to modify, despite that Act, the existing public service long-term disability programs in respect of the period during which employees are not entitled to receive benefits.

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

moved that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to be here today to discuss Bill C-59, the new chapter of our government's economic action plan.

It is apparent that our plan continues to yield results. Indeed, Canada continues to move forward in the face of a fragile external environment and global economic uncertainty. Despite this uncertainty, Canada has achieved one of the best economic performances among G7 countries over the recovery. Real gross domestic product has increased more in Canada than in any other G7 country since the end of the recession. Furthermore, since we introduced the economic action plan to respond to the global recession, Canada has recovered all of the jobs lost during the recession, and more. In fact, the Canadian economy has posted one of the strongest job-creation records in the G7 over the recovery, with over 1.2 million net new jobs created since June 2009.

Today's legislation would continue our government's hard work. It would help families and communities prosper, support jobs and economic growth, ensure the security of Canadians, and of course, fulfill our promise to balance the budget.

In my allotted time today, I would like to highlight some of the important and thoughtful measures in Bill C-59 and illustrate how they would benefit Canadians.

Our government holds a fundamental belief: those who work hard to earn their dollars deserve to keep them. It is why we have cut taxes over and over again. In fact, this government has lowered taxes every year since coming into office. That is over 180 different times. As a result, the overall federal tax burden is now at its lowest level in more than 50 years. Canadians at all income levels are benefiting from the tax relief introduced by our government, with low- and middle-income families receiving proportionately greater relief.

In 2015-2016, Canadian families and individuals would receive $37 billion in tax relief and increased benefits as a result of our government's actions taken since 2006. For example, a typical two-earner family of four would receive tax relief and increased benefits of up to $6,600 in 2015 thanks to measures such as the family tax cut, the universal child care benefit, the GST reductions, the introduction of the children's fitness tax credit, and other broad-based income tax relief measures.

By reducing taxes consistently and enhancing benefits to Canadians, the government has given families and individuals greater flexibility to make the choices that are right for them. Canadians know that it is only the Conservatives who can be trusted to truly lower taxes for them.

Bill C-59 would go even further to help Canadian families make ends meet by supporting tax fairness through the family tax cut, which would allow a higher-income spouse to in effect transfer up to $50,000 of taxable income to a spouse in a lower income bracket. By increasing the universal child care benefit for children under age six and expanding it to children aged six through 17, parents would be eligible for a benefit of $160 per month for each child under the age of six and $60 per month for children aged six through 17. This is great news for every Canadian family with children. Increasing the child care expense deduction dollar limits by $1,000, effective for the 2015 tax year, would mean that the maximum amount that could be claimed would increase to $8,000 from $7,000 for children under age seven and to $5,000 from $4,000 for children aged seven through 16, and to $11,000 from $10,000 for children who are eligible for the disability tax credit.

Every single Canadian family with children under the age of 18 would benefit from these important measures. The Liberal leader admitted that he believed “benefiting every single family is not what is fair”. I disagree. Our government believes that every single Canadian family would keep more of its own money, and that is the absolute definition of fairness.

We would also increase the tax-free savings account annual contribution limit to $10,000 to help Canadians save more of their hard-earned money. Whether they want to purchase a new home or car, start a new business, or save for retirement, Canadians have many reasons to save at every stage of their lives. That is the whole reason our government introduced the tax-free savings account in the first place. The TFSA provides greater savings incentives for low- and modest-income individuals, because in addition to the tax savings, neither the income earned in a TFSA nor withdrawals from it affect a person's federal income-tested benefits and credits, like the Canada child tax credit or old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits.

I am proud that Bill C-59 would give Canadians more options when it comes to saving for their future and would let Canadians, not the government, manage their own money.

Just as we are making it easier for Canadians to save, we want them to feel confident that they will be able to enjoy their golden years. The fact is, Canadians are living longer than ever and are opening new rich chapters in their lives in retirement. That is why Bill C-59 introduces measures to give seniors more freedom and flexibility when it comes to managing their retirement income.

For example, Canadians' retirement savings are typically held in tax assisted registered plans, such as RPPs, registered pension plans; registered retirement savings plans, RRSPs; registered retirement income funds, RRIFs; and tax-free savings accounts, TFSAs.

Bill C-59 would adjust the RRIF minimum withdrawal factors that apply in respect of ages 71 to 94 to better reflect more recent long-term historical real rates of return and expected inflation. As a result, the new RRIF factors would be substantially lower than the existing factors, helping seniors across the country. By permitting more capital preservation, the new factors would help reduce the risk of outliving one's savings while ensuring that the tax deferral provided on RRSP and RRIF savings continued to serve a retirement income purpose.

This is another example of how we are supporting seniors, not looking for new ways to tax them. Unlike the opposition members, who would much too eagerly jump at the opportunity to tax Canadian seniors, and they have proven that recently, we believe that the best thing we can do is provide extra support for seniors with lower taxes, solid pensions, and a strong health care system.

Let me take a minute to recognize the brave men and women who have stood and fought, and continue to, for our freedom. Those are Canada's veterans. We must never forget the contribution veterans have made to our freedom and security. They have willingly defended the security of Canadians knowing full well the potential cost of their own commitment. We owe them our compassion, our respect, and our gratitude.

With the implementation of the new veterans charter in 2006, the government significantly increased the range of benefits and services it provides to veterans. This included not just compensation but support to help restore their ability to function back at home and in their communities. However, we can always do more for these heroes, which is why I am extremely proud that Bill C-59 proposes additional improvements to the charter, including new investments to enhance benefits for moderately to severely disabled veterans and increased support for family caregivers. Specifically, it would create a critical injury benefit, which would provide a $70,000 tax-free award to Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans who have suffered service-related severe, sudden, and traumatic injuries or diseases.

Furthermore, many veterans depend on the support of friends and family who often provide informal caregiving services. Therefore, the bill would create a new tax-free family caregiver relief benefit to seriously disabled veterans who require daily assistance from an informal caregiver. This new benefit would provide annual financial support of $7,238 to eligible veterans so that they could better afford paid services and give respite to their loved ones.

When I speak with veterans in my home riding of North Vancouver, I appreciate the sacrifice these Canadians have made. I am pleased that the bill can go a long way in giving them more of the assistance and support they need.

However, there is still more, and I would like to turn my attention to small businesses.

We know that small businesses are the lifeblood of the Canadian economy. They account for over 90% of all businesses in Canada and employ two-thirds of all Canadians. Needless to say, our government believes that small businesses should spend their time growing their businesses and creating jobs, not choking on high taxes and excess red tape. It is why we have repeatedly cut taxes significantly for small businesses and their owners. Building on our record, today's legislation would reduce the small business tax rate to 9% by 2019, the largest tax rate cut for small businesses in more than a quarter of a century.

For example, for a Canadian small business with taxable income of $500,000, as a result of this tax cut and other measures since 2006, the amount of federal tax paid would be 46% lower than in 2006, which is nearly half of what is was just nine short years ago. This would mean an annual tax reduction of up to $38,600 that could be reinvested in the business to fuel its growth, retain capital and create long-lasting jobs.

I would now like to discuss one of our government's most important promises: balancing the budget.

When the great recession hit us, we responded quickly and effectively with a historic stimulus program. Our plan worked. We emerged from the recession faster and stronger than virtually any other major advanced economy. When the crisis passed, we set out on a course to balance budgets, but we did not do it by raising taxes or slashing transfers for education and health care, like the Liberals did in the 1990s.

It is really important to point out that we balanced budgets while keeping transfers now at the highest level in history. We focused on controlling operating expenses for federal departments, identifying efficiencies that focused on making government operations better and more efficient. As a result, the deficit has been reduced from $55.6 billion at the height of the global economic crisis to a projected surplus this year of $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion the year after. This is great news for Canadians everywhere.

Indeed, when we survey the state of the global economy, Canada's reputation for sound fiscal management is ironclad, and the world looks to Canada as a leader and economic powerhouse, well tested against the odds. That is a reputation our government intends to keep and it is exactly why Bill C-59 introduces balanced budget legislation. The legislation would ensure that the hard-won gains achieved over the past five years would remain in place for future generations.

We have said it before and we will say it again: budgets do not balance themselves. The opposition members, who seem preoccupied with high taxes and deficits, may think that they do, but here on this side of the House we know that fiscal discipline, balanced budgets and strong leadership will leave our children and grandchildren with an even more prosperous country.

The legislation would also ensure that the only acceptable deficits would be ones that respond to a recession or an extraordinary circumstance, such as a war or natural disaster. Deficits outside of a recession or an extraordinary circumstance are unacceptable and the need to return to balanced budgets is immediate. To that end, this legislation proposes that, should Canada again enter into deficit, the finance minister would be required to testify before the House of Commons committee on finance within 30 days and present a plan with concrete timelines to return to balanced budgets.

Moreover, should the deficit be due to a recession or other extraordinary circumstance, operating spending would be frozen, as would the salaries of cabinet ministers and deputy ministers government-wide once the recovery begins. If on the other hand the deficit is due to mismanagement, operating budgets will be frozen automatically and the salaries of cabinet ministers and deputy ministers alike would be reduced by 5%.

This approach would ensure that any increase in spending to respond to a recession, war or natural disaster would be temporary, targeted and timely. It is just another way that our government is taking leadership to ensure long-term prosperity for Canadians.

I could list many more measures in this bill that would benefit all Canadians, but I see that my time is almost up.

Our government's hard work has borne fruit. Our economic action plan is working, and we continue to get noticed on the global stage for our rock solid economy. In fact, ours is the largest economy that still has a Triple-A long-term credit rating. Canada is one of only a handful of countries in the world that still has that Triple-A credit rating.

For example, the World Economic Forum rated Canada's banking system as the soundest in the world for the seventh year in a row in its annual Global Competitiveness Report. This is unheard of. According to KPMG, total business tax costs in Canada are the lowest in the G7, and 46% lower than those in the United States. In fact, Bloomberg says that Canada is the second best place in the world to do business. When was the last time that happened? I do not think that has ever happened.

This economic resilience also reflects the actions that our government took before the global crisis, including lowering taxes and paying down debt. In fact, we paid down about $39 billion in debt prior to the recession. We have also reduced red tape and promoted free trade and innovation.

Our government's priorities have always been to create well-paying and secure jobs for Canadians and Canadian families, to lower taxes for Canadian families and businesses, and to balance the budget. Bill C-59 does not stray from these priorities. In fact, the bill would ensure that Canada's future is secure and prosperous, with a healthy economy fuelled by low taxes and sustainable public finances, all while helping families, seniors, veterans, small businesses and many more. It is another reminder that a government can reject high-tax and high-spend schemes that would put us back in a deficit and still provide meaningful support for all Canadians.

I encourage all members of the House to read the legislation. I hope that the opposition gives the bill the support that it deserves.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, where do I start? I notice that parliamentary secretaries were not included in those who have to take a pay cut if the government runs deficits. It is utter hypocrisy, but that one section of this massive omnibus bill is truly hypocritical. My friend neglected to mention that it is an omnibus bill. It is another kitchen sink bill of another 157-odd pages with everything thrown into it, particularly things that the government does not want Canadians to see.

Even in the Conservatives' balanced budget legislation, it is a bit of a deathbed conversion for the Conservatives, because they have added more than $150 billion in deficit since taking office. Notice how they did not have any of that legislation in place while they were running those massive deficits. It was just as they crept toward a balance, which they achieved through cuts to rail service, rail protection, food inspection, cuts to veterans, cuts to the CBC and selling off GM shares.

My colleague from Parkdale—High Park says that the Conservatives looked through the couch, got out all of the change that they could find and then sold the couch as well in order to creep toward that balance. Now we see them coming forward with this motion around a balanced budget.

Let me take on one aspect of what my friend raised today. The doubling of the TFSA has been studied by many economists, both Conservative and progressive. They show that the top 20% of Canadians would realize 180% more of the benefits than everybody else. Again, the top fifth, the absolute wealthiest part of this country, will get 180% more benefit than everybody else in the country.

I wonder how my friend can possibly justify that particular measure when so many Canadians, particularly in the middle and working classes, need a break?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the member opposite asked me that question, because it gives me the opportunity to again repeat that the tax-free savings account is the most popular savings vehicle since RRSPs were introduced half a century ago. In fact, 11 million Canadians have already opened TFSAs, and the vast majority are middle and low-income Canadians, including 600,000 seniors with incomes below $60,000. They are maximizing their TFSA room, and they will benefit from this measure.

It would give Canadians another opportunity to save for their retirements, to save for that down payment on a house and to save for their children's education. It is just another opportunity for Canadians to save with tax assistance from the government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when I listen to the member, what comes across my mind when he boasts about the economic action plan is that the government has really missed the mark by not recognizing that this budget is not a fair budget. It is not a budget that addresses the many needs of Canada's middle class. It is not fair. It gives more to Canada's wealthiest, while at the same time, does not give the attention necessary to the hard-working middle class and those who aspire to being part of Canada's middle class.

The former Conservative minister, Jim Flaherty, said income splitting would favour 14% of Canada's population, the wealthiest of Canada's population, and the middle class would have to foot the bill.

Does the member believe that Jim Flaherty and others who have been critical of the government's taxation policy are wrong? How does he justify to Canadians that this is a fair budget when we know in reality it is not a fair budget?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to fairness, it is the middle- and low-income Canadians who have actually benefited the most as a result of our measures. Here is a quote from Mackenzie in Swan River, Manitoba. She said:

This helps a lot for single parents.... Thank you for helping us raise our children.

The Liberals want to raise taxes on middle-class families. They think that budgets balance themselves. They want to raise taxes on middle-class seniors and they want to raise taxes on middle-class consumers. That is their plan, to raise taxes on the middle class.

In contrast, our Conservative government is reducing taxes on the middle class, and in fact benefiting all Canadian families, but do not take my word for it. This is a quote from the CFIB:

CFIB gives 2015 budget an “A”: Big tax cut for small business

....small business owners across the country will be thrilled to see several small business friendly measures in the 2015 budget...

What is good for small businesses is good for Canadians and good for employment.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. parliamentary secretary, and I echo the concerns of my friend from Skeena—Bulkley Valley. When we are presented with yet another omnibus budget bill, we fear that as in the previous multiple omnibus budget bills, the independent different sections of this one will not get adequate study.

I am particularly concerned in this first question about division 20 of part 3. I have read the bill. It is on page 147. How can we possibly claim that the Treasury Board and the Government of Canada have entered into collective bargaining with our hard-working public sector workers when we are unilaterally, through the legislation, changing the approach to sick leave?

I am very embarrassed by this. I think those people who work so hard in the Government of Canada are beleaguered by repeated efforts to make it look as though they do not work hard and do not deserve the support of the Canadian public. I ask my hon. colleague to reconsider division 20 of part 3.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague may have read that section, but she obviously does not understand it.

Economic action plan 2015 reaffirms the government's commitment to pursuing a new disability and sick leave management system. The 40-year old sick leave accumulation system is antiquated and not responsive to the needs of the majority of our employees.

Over 60% of the employees in the public service do not have enough banked sick leave to cover the waiting period before accessing long-term disability benefits; 25% have fewer than 10 days banked sick leave. This places them at risk of income loss. A modernized system would provide adequate support for all employees, regardless of age, medical history and years of service.

The system is not equitable, leaving younger or newer employees without means to handle a short-term illness or injury. The current system also does not have a provision to address mental health issues.

We are resolving those in this budget.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the tax-free savings account was first established, it was heralded as the best innovation in retirement savings since the RRSP, and we fulfilled a promise that we made to the Canadian people to double the tax-free savings account. I believe that it is the responsibility of government not only to help those who need help but to provide tools for those who can help themselves so that they can make sure they have adequate savings to have a comfortable retirement.

I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could elaborate on the benefits of the increased TFSA and what it is going to mean to millions of Canadians.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the tax-free savings account is being heralded across the country as the best savings vehicle since the RRSP was introduced half a century ago, as I mentioned. As a result, 11 million Canadians have chosen to take up the TFSA, and the vast majority of them are middle- and low-income Canadians. These are people who want to save for their future so that they can be comfortable in their retirement.

The least a government can do is offer Canadians a vehicle with tax assistance. It is a voluntary vehicle, so it is up to people whether they want to contribute, but it is a tax-assisted vehicle so that they can save for the future.

It is not a mandatory vehicle of the kind the opposition wants to impose. This is a voluntary vehicle, because we believe Canadians are the ones best able to decide how and when they want to save for the future.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as always, I am honoured to speak in the House, but I am not particularly honoured to speak to Bill C-59. This bill is more than 150 pages long and will be devastating not only for the Canadian economy, but also for Canadian workers.

The Conservatives have once again introduced an omnibus bill designed to push through hundreds of changes that are not subject to study or oversight. This bill contains more than 270 clauses amending dozens of laws, most of which have nothing to do with the budget.

The Conservatives' income splitting plan will cost Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars and will benefit only the wealthy. The increase to the TFSA limit will only make things worse.

With more than 150 pages in this massive omnibus bill, yet again we see the Conservatives essentially abusing the parliamentary process. Today The Globe and Mail called it a “contemptuous disregard for Parliament” and “an ugly precedent”.

I remember what the current Prime Minister—and not for long prime minister—said while in opposition about omnibus legislation that he did not like. He said:

Second, in the interest of democracy I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns?

We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse?

The massive omnibus bill that the Prime Minister was criticizing was 20 pages long. However, Conservatives have brought in three omnibus bills that were over 450 pages long, and another one topped out at over 880 pages.

Therefore, I guess what Conservatives are saying to Parliament and to Canadians is that in such an abusive relationship, this is just a small abuse, so we should accept it and tolerate it. However, in one fell swoop, dozens of laws would be affected, from Parliament Hill security to terrorism to veterans to undermining basic human rights protections for unpaid interns to undermining the charter protection for collective bargaining for public servants in this country. All of that is rammed into this one bill, and Conservatives are going to ram it through Parliament just as surely as day follows night.

Let us first set the context of where this particular budget lands in the Canadian economy.

Members will notice that the Conservatives' talking points about the economic performance of the government are increasingly stale. That is because the only numbers that show any positive light on what is happening in the Canadian context are now three, four, and five years old, and according to the Department of Finance, for the last 15 months growth in Canada's economy has been less than 1%.

To put that in historical context, that is the worst record outside of a recession for any government in more than 40 years. I will repeat that: outside of recession, the last almost year and a half has been the worst growth record of any government in the last four and a half decades. Still Conservatives would have us believe that everything is fine, despite massive job losses in the energy sector, retail sector, and sectors like manufacturing. We have now lost more than 420,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs over the nine long years since the Conservatives took power. That is more than half a million manufacturing jobs lost since 2000.

This is devastating for the Canadian economy. As we have seen and as the Governor of the Bank of the Canada shows us consistently, when oil prices rise, the Canadian dollar rises, which tends to have a somewhat negative effect on manufacturing output, and when it drops, manufacturing typically picks back up in Canada. However, the Canadian dollar now hovers around 80¢. We have not seen that uptick in the manufacturing sector, because things are different now. Under the Conservatives' watch, the downturn in manufacturing has become more permanent.

There are in fact 250,000 fewer jobs in Canada right now than before the recession hit and more than 160,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians than before the recession hit. We have not yet recovered from the depths of the recession. We have not yet seen the recovery that Canadians were expecting. Certainly, if one believed all the ads the government has bought with taxpayer money—almost $750 million worth—one would think everything was perfect. However, Canadians know different, because Canadians right now are carrying the highest debt loads in Canadian history. Each individual household is now carrying, on average, more debt than we ever have since our country was founded.

We also see, from a government that claims fiscal austerity and prudence, that the historical record has actually met the current record. The Conservatives have added more than $150 billion to the national debt. That is $4,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country. We know it is more than $4,000 per person because by the time we pay that debt off—if we ever pay it off, and certainly not under our current government's plan—it will be much more than $4,000, because when one borrows money, it always ends up costing more. Every Canadian has had that experience with student loans or car loans or a mortgage. However, that is how much the Conservatives have added to the national debt.

People might ask what we got in return. Did we get a robust economy? Did we get a more diversified and sustainable economy, such as the one the leader in Alberta, Rachel Notley, talks about creating for that fine province? No. We have again seen an overreliance on a soaring commodity price that goes up and goes down. We have seen yet another opportunity squandered by the government.

If the Conservative economic plan was working, then the Conservative economic plan would be working, and it is not. Canadians know it, and no $750 million ad buy is going to convince them otherwise.

We have also seen in the budget document, this omnibus bill, that there are a lot of perks in it for the wealthy and the well connected. They do okay. In fact, they do great.

Bankers do not tend to use very colourful or aggressive language generally, but when asked about the performance of the Canadian economy just a few weeks ago, the Governor of the Bank of Canada called it “atrocious”. He is right.

In an atrocious economic environment, one would think job one from the government of the day would be to create jobs, to get people back to work, to diversify the economy, to invest in the economy in ways that would actually produce the jobs that we have been missing since the last global recession. Instead, we see the true priorities of the Conservatives when it comes to jobs, and that is their own jobs. They are hoping to buy back re-election just one more time.

“Give us one more chance”, say the Conservatives, “We're going to figure this thing out this time.” What they are looking to do is buy some votes and trick folks yet again with something like income splitting, which will cost in the order of $2.2 billion and do nothing for 85% of Canadian families whatsoever. It does something for 15% of families, and those families are particularly in the wealthier brackets. Nearly $2.5 billion will go to help the top 15%, and produce what in the economy? Nothing, except a little help for those who already have had quite a bit of help.

One might say that is enough of a bauble to give to wealthier Canadians, but the Conservatives say, “Wait; there is more. We are going to take a thing called the tax-free savings account, which right now has a limit of $5,500 per year, and nearly double it to $10,000.”

When we look at the actual impact of doing something like this, we see that tax-free savings accounts, despite the claim from the government, have not increased savings for Canadians. There is no evidence whatsoever that since TFSAs were first introduced in 2009, there has been any increase in savings for Canadians, which is the whole reason the government brought in the program in the first place. If the intention of the program was to help people save and people are not saving as a result of the program, we enter the very definition of insanity, which is to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. However, that is exactly what we get when we deal with Conservatives.

Let us look instead at what the doubling of the TFSA actually does. There was a moment of truth in this whole debate that came from the Minister of Finance. Occasionally he drops by and says some things or talks to the odd reporter.

He said that this thing gets very expensive later on, which was the question, because it does. The cost to the treasury gets up into the tens of billions of dollars. He said, “Why don't we leave that to the Prime Minister's granddaughter to solve that problem?” Is that not nice? Is it not nice when a generation before us says, “Yes, we're creating a huge hole, but we're going to let the people a generation or two down the line fill it in”.

Those are not the conservatives I know. In the place I represent in northwestern British Columbia, the conservatives I know always look to make things better for their kids and grandkids, and that extends beyond the financial into the environmental. It is the idea that we try to leave the place better than we found it. Both on economics and the environment, Conservatives are at least consistent. They are into the scorched earth policies. They are into the ones that they will pay later. They are like the guy in Vegas with the ATM card who just does not know how to quit.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Office, which the Conservatives routinely quote in this place, an office we helped the Conservatives create, if we all remember, some nine years ago, this doubling of the TFSA would give the top 20% who receive this benefit 180% more than every other group of Canadians below them. Think about that for a moment. Almost double the advantages, almost double the money, almost double the benefits of everyone else combined would go to the people at the very top of the pile.

We also know that the PBO expects the benefit to high-wealth households to increase by 35%, while low- and middle-wealth households are, and this is a quote, “not projected to be materially affected by the proposed changes”. Therefore, middle- and working-class Canadians get bupkes; nothing. It is for the wealthiest group, which does have 10 or 20 grand just burning holes in their pockets at the end of every year.

I do not know what middle-class group of Canadians the Conservatives are talking to, but the ones I deal with are struggling just to make ends meet, with the high cost of child care, electricity, paying for their mortgages, and just keeping their homes good and happy. Most of the families I talk to do not have $10,000 or $20,000. Do members know who does? Do members know who is maxing out on this already and will max out in the future? It is the wealthy households. This is why the Conservatives are able to skew the stats. The children of wealthy families are maxing out their TFSAs and will again. It is a shelter for wealthy Canadians, which is how they are proposing to use it, making the problem even worse.

New Democrats maintain that keeping the TFSA where it is is fine, but doubling it will end up costing tens of billions of dollars, and again we have to ask to what effect.

There is so much in this bill. Let us talk for a moment about a proposal the NDP made as the government was clamouring to get to a balanced budget. We said we have this child poverty situation in this country that years and years ago the House of Commons solemnly committed to eradicate, under the leadership of Ed Broadbent, the former New Democratic leader and a mentor to many of us. All members stood in the House, Conservatives included, and said, “We are going to get to this problem, because it is a problem that affects all of us. It does not know right and left. It is right and wrong, and this is right”. The House of Commons said it was going to do something about it, so New Democrats came up with a solution.

The tax code is thousands of pages long, by the way. It costs billions of dollars for Canadians to file every year. The Conservatives only make that problem worse and more expensive for individuals and small businesses. They do not mind, because it is all about the next election. However, under that massive tax code, there is a little loophole for CEOs, for those who receive their pay in stock options. Again, I am thinking about the middle- and working-class Canadians I know. Not a lot of them get paid in stock options.

People who get paid in stock options pay almost half the tax that everyone else does. Is that not nice? Is it not nice to get paid in stock options and only pay half the tax? For people making north of $250,000, $350,000 a year, times are tough.

There is a $750 million per year loophole in the tax code now that we said should be closed. It is easy, it is understandable, and we know what to do with it: take every single dollar from that loophole and help eradicate child poverty in Canada. Who is going to vote against that? Who is going to stand in this place and say no, no, no, the folks in the corner offices, the CEOs, the guys driving the Maseratis and the Ferraris, they need that money. It is hard to get to St. Barts and St. Kitts these days. Prices are high for that second, third, and fourth vacation home.

Instead, New Democrats said to use it to eradicate child poverty, which would help right across the board, not only the children and families involved who are living below the poverty line but our education system and our health care system, and it would help Canada be a more productive and prosperous nation.

We have also seen in this massive bill the ramming in of an entire veterans bill, which was before the House, Bill C-58, and that the government has been stalling on for years, to help out our veterans. After the Conservatives' shameful treatment, which continues to this day, denying veterans of this country the benefits they are so deserving of, they decided to pick it up holus bolus and drop it into an omnibus bill.

Just before this debate started, we sought the strength of the House of Commons to take that veterans bill and move it right to committee today. What did the Conservatives say? No. They said no. They said they did not want to do that. They would rather have it go through this process that will take weeks and perhaps months and go to the Senate and all the rest of that stuff. That is how much they care about veterans. It is a political football for them to toss around again and again.

The changing of Hill security, the changing of a constitutional decree about how security should be done on the Hill, is also in this.

New Democrats have been fighting, through the good work of a number of our MPs from all across the country, to protect unpaid interns from unreasonable work and sexual harassment at work. We had a bill we have been fighting for through Parliament. The Conservatives denied it. They put something in here, but they forgot to put the part in to protect unpaid interns from sexual harassment. They forgot, they said. It did not come up, they said. We had legislation going through the House. These are disproportionately young Canadians and they are vulnerable in the workplace because obviously, if they are seeking an internship, particularly an unpaid one, they are trying to get a resume together, trying to get a foot in the very difficult marketplace and job market. Yet Conservatives found no room in their hearts to actually fix this.

I have to say a couple of things that are positive, because I am an optimistic guy. There are four things out of 157 pages. That is not bad. Unsurprisingly, they were proposals we put forward to the House of Commons.

Before I went into politics, I was a small-business owner. I know intuitively, and the facts back it up, that small businesses are the engine of the Canadian economy. They create eight out of 10 new jobs in Canada in the private sector. They account for almost 45% of our GDP, the strength of this economy. While Conservatives and Liberals alike have been handing out billions upon tens of billions of corporate tax cuts to the largest corporations, we said how about a little break for small businesses. The NDP proposed a 2% drop in the small business tax rate.

We also said that manufacturing has been hammered. More than half a million jobs have been lost in just 15 years, and more than 400,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing since the government took over. We said let us help out manufacturing.

We also said that we want to see innovation, because Canada's private sector consistently has one of the lowest levels of innovation in research and development of any of the developed nations. We have to change that, so we put a motion to the government and debated all day in the House of Commons. What did the government say? It said that is was bad economics and a bad idea, and the Conservatives voted against the NDP motion.

Lo and behold, surprise of surprises, those very same ideas ended up in the omnibus budget bill. I guess they were such bad economics that the Conservatives found themselves agreeing with the NDP's ideas. Good for them. Imitation is the best form of flattery, but imitation is obviously not as good as the original. The Conservatives decided to lower the small business tax rate twice as slow as what we had proposed. There is urgency in trying to buy some votes from wealthier Canadians, but they will take their time when it comes to helping small businesses.

Conservatives also changed some rules about RRIFs, which the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River had proposed, and they extended the compassionate care benefits in EI to help people who are caring for a loved one at end of life. We think that is good. We think we need to change the rules around EI so that more people, particularly women, who are the ones who do 75% of this palliative care, actually qualify for EI.

In summation, to say this is yet another failed opportunity is far too gracious. This is a government so focused on its own prospects it is unable to see the concern we have, shared by the governor of the bank, by private sector economists, and by developed nations, writ large, that the Canadian economy is sputtering. It is not creating the jobs. It has not recovered those jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“this House decline to give second reading to Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, because it:

a) fails to support working- and middle-class families through the introduction of affordable childcare and a $15-per-hour federal minimum wage;

b) imposes wasteful and unfair income-splitting measures which primarily benefit the wealthy and offer nothing to 85% of Canadian families;

c) fails to protect interns against workplace sexual harassment or unreasonable hours of work;

d) implements expanded Tax-Free Savings Account measures which benefit the wealthiest households while leaving major fiscal problems to our grandchildren;

e) rolls a separate, stand-alone, and supportable piece of legislation concerning Canada's veterans into an omnibus bill that contains vastly unrelated, unsupportable measures; and

f) attacks the right to free and fair collective bargaining for hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers.”

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The amendment is admissible.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments made by the New Democratic finance critic. It is safe to say that there are certain aspects we are in agreement with.

For example, in questioning the parliamentary secretary, I emphasized how unfair the taxation policy in this budget is. In the amendment being proposed, the member made reference to income splitting. We are in complete agreement that income splitting would benefit fewer than 15% of Canadians, and we are talking about some of the wealthiest Canadians.

We can talk about the tax-free savings account and how, again, it is disproportionately Canada's wealthiest people who would be able to take advantage of what would be provided by the government.

It seems to me that it would be the middle class that would be taxed to pay for these benefits. Therefore, the budget is an unfair budget, and we need to see some changes.

My question for the member is related to what has been a fairly well-received plan espoused by the leader of the Liberal Party and the Liberals. It deals with the 7% cut in income tax for the middle class. I have not heard what the NDP's position is on that sort of tax cut. Are the New Democrats in favour of the 7% tax cut the leader of the Liberal Party and the Liberal caucus have been advocating? It would be a fair tax cut and would assist Canada's middle class, because a healthy, strong middle class means a strong economy.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Winnipeg was doing so well right up until the end there. We have to differentiate a couple of things that are important here.

The income splitting that has been in place for a number of years for Canadian seniors has within it a great deal of equity. It helps wealthier seniors but more importantly it gives middle-income and lower-income seniors the ability to split income. We want to maintain that.

The TFSA originally, with the cap of $5,500, was a fine measure. It did not increase savings at all in Canada, which is purportedly the reason the government brought it in. However, in and of itself it is fine; it is the doubling. The Conservatives take two ideas that are okay and then warp them into something that is inherently unfair, which I think speaks to my friend from Winnipeg's point.

I have spent some time looking at the current version of the Liberal leader's tax plan. It has changed a couple of times. The only concerns I would raise is that two-thirds of Canadian filers do not receive any benefit whatsoever under the plan. That is according to Finance Canada and Statistics Canada numbers. There is a second piece where the largest share under the Liberal leader's plan goes to incomes between $90,000 and $200,000. That is the lion's share of the benefit. Last, I would say that the numbers are not yet quite complete for the Liberals' plan. There is at least $2 billion they have admitted to, probably another billion dollars, that is missing, as well as just over-assuming the revenues from their tax augmentation and those north of $200,000.

We have looked at it. We think we have a better offer. The $15 a day child care for Canadian families would directly help the middle- and working-class Canadians, as well as a national $15 minimum wage. That would clearly bring at least a few more people up into just approaching the poverty line, which I know sounds radical to the Conservatives, but this is something that the New Democrats believe we should at least aspire to.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague's intervention is not informative it certainly is entertaining. I did like the point he made about imitation being the finest point of flattery. That might explain why he has adopted my hairstyle. He does recall that he did also say in his own words that the imitation is not as good as the original. Therefore, I will claim to be the original bald guy here right now.

The member talked about the budget measures we are putting in place benefiting largely people with Maseratis and Lamborghinis, but nobody in my riding owns a Maserati or a Lamborghini. I have never even seen one.

This budget increases transfer payments to my home territory to record levels, in fact, 63% higher than previous Liberal government investments. It has record health care transfers. It is allowing local governments to determine their own priorities and needs at a local level. There are excellent measures in here to let local jurisdictions decide what their priorities are and then deliver them for the people of the north.

I am just wondering if the member opposite could explain this to us. If all these measures are so bad, why is it that the member for Ottawa Centre has been communicating in his riding about all of the measures that we are putting in place and why would he promote those measures if the New Democrats are so against them?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the hairstyle question first because it is obviously the most important one. If precedence is important, then I think he has to give some credit to the member who is sitting just in front of him. Let us deal with this and honour those who have gone before us in breaking that style into common and very stylish usage.

If the Conservatives are going to compare themselves to the Liberal record before, it is just not really a high bar to set. We need better standards than that because we know through the 90s that the way that the great deficit slayer Paul Martin did that was by cutting transfers massively to the provinces and territories while handing out tens of billions of dollars to the wealthiest corporations and allowing billions more to go into offshore accounts. What that did was haemorrhage the abilities of the provinces and territories to pay for things like roads, schools and bridges. That was the choice that the Liberals made.

That was then, this is now. This is an important point that has not yet come up. What we are dealing with now is if we look at foreign direct investment coming out of Canada right now, out of the top five nations that Canadian corporations and the wealthiest Canadians are sending their direct investment to, three are tax shelter countries, such as Barbados and the Cayman Islands. The Conservatives have not done anything about this. We are not talking about a small amount of money, we are talking about $57 billion to $65 billion going out the door every year to be invested in Barbados. I am sure it is a nice place, but the reason wealthy Canadians and those corporations are doing it is to avoid paying taxes here.

I would have thought that my friend from the Yukon and others would have been raising this point and hammering it away. However, there has been nothing about tax evasion here. Rather, there are cuts to the CRA, which would go after those same tax evaders. We think that should be changed.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, our finance critic, for his very enlightening and informative speech.

I would like to take him in a slightly different direction. The Conservatives' speeches are often carbon copies of each other and we rarely hear anything new. We already know what they will say. What they never mention are the less positive effects of their measures.

In this case, they are taking all the credit for increasing the universal child care benefit, for example, which is in their budget and in this budget bill. However, they never mention that, in order to be able to pay for the increase to the UCCB, they are eliminating other tax credits. Money does not grow on trees. The government eliminated the child tax credit, which the Conservatives never mention. They give the impression that they are giving gifts that have no consequences.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this kind of rhetoric and on the negative effect this could have over the medium term on public funds and also on Canadians' confidence in the government's financial management skills.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

I am concerned about the Conservatives' very negative choices, because they will affect future generations and the future of this country over the short and long terms. That party is having serious political problems, as we saw in Alberta, for example. The Minister of Finance has said that it is not his problem, but rather a problem for future generations to worry about. That is not reasonable and it is not conservative.

With respect to the Conservatives' speeches, I agree that they are often carbon copies of each other. They always use the same points and the same language. It is always nonsense. It is not a very original party, but that is their choice.

This is about our economy and the sustainability of our economy. We are currently facing a few very serious challenges and we need a government that is just as serious, that believes in clean energy and that wants to invest in all Canadians, rather than helping only the rich.

The Leader of the Opposition has some good solutions that are supported by several economists. Like many other people, I have high expectations for the upcoming election, for Canadians will have a very clear choice between the Conservatives' policy and the NDP's policy, which is more progressive, more equitable and more effective.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina, The Economy.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of the people of Bourassa, whom I represent, and to present the position of the Liberal Party on omnibus Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures.

This bill says a lot about the Conservative government's current state. It is obvious that we are headed towards an election. This government has always had a single priority: remaining in power. Therefore, it is not surprising that budget 2015 and the bill before us are all about electioneering. Unfortunately for Canadians, when electioneering becomes the sole priority, the government loses all its vision. There is nothing in the budget for economic growth, jobs, the environment or first nations.

The major challenges that we are up against today are completely ignored. Why? There is an election this year, and the sole purpose of the Conservatives' budget is to please its political base. The priorities are now giving gifts to the wealthy and partisan advertising.

The only thing that almost made me smile yesterday after my team, the Canadiens, lost, was the knowledge that we will no longer have to watch the Conservatives' partisan ads at the expense of Canadian taxpayers. The measures in this bill, which we are supposed to be debating today, have already been advertised to all Canadian homes, as though Parliament had nothing to say about the matter. That is essentially how it works under the current government. The Prime Minister governs, and once he has ruled, we, as representatives of Canadians, have nothing left to say. We are familiar with this. Even the members on the other side of the House are muzzled.

I rise today in the House to debate this bill, but I also rise in direct protest of this undemocratic way of running the country's affairs. Fortunately there is an election this fall. It is high time for change. This government is preparing for an election instead of governing, so it is no surprise that its bill is completely out of touch with Canadians' priorities. Although the bill does contain some small measures that we support, its main elements are policies that will simply not benefit Canadian society. That is why we will not support this bill.

I would like to list some of the measures in this bill that are utterly unacceptable. Let us start with income splitting. This is a clear example of how out of touch with reality the Conservatives are because, as we know, only families whose two incomes are in different tax brackets will benefit. That excludes single-parent families. Even a family that the Conservatives would consider typical, a four-person family—according to their 2014 budget—would not get a cent from that. I am talking about people with incomes ranging from $48,000 to $72,000. Such a couple cannot benefit from income splitting at all. We might wonder why the Conservatives are bound and determined to implement this unfair measure that will not do anything for the economy. Put simply, this is an election promise. It was a mistake in 2011, and it is still a mistake now. Still, they insist on bringing in income splitting. Ever since they made that promise, publications and testimonies discrediting the measure have been piling up.

If the government would get its head out of the sand, it would have heard when the C.D. Howe Institute was the first to sound the alarm way back in October 2011. That organization said that 85% of Canadian families would receive nothing, and that among two-parent families, nearly half would receive absolutely nothing or just a few scraps.

In January 2014 the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives was the next one to say that 86% of families would not receive anything and that 60% of families with the lowest incomes, that is under $56,000, would receive only $50, on average, based on the Conservatives' proposed income splitting.

In June 2014 the Broadbent Institute said that nine out of ten families would not get anything. This measure, which targets families with children under the age of 18, has completely missed the mark. Most of them will receive absolutely nothing.

This year, on March 17, the Parliamentary Budget Officer was the next in line to say that the Conservatives' plan for income splitting will cost $2.2 billion in 2015. He estimates that the average benefit will go to families with incomes above $180,000, and that this measure will encourage the person with the lower income, the secondary income, to leave the labour market to try to take advantage of it, which could cost up to 7,000 full-time jobs. Once again, the Conservatives' income splitting measure will cost $2.2 billion.

It is no surprise that, even among the Conservative ranks, some members oppose this measure. I hope they will say so publicly, here today in the House. Yes, some will be held to account, but I also want to talk about one Conservative in particular. The former finance minister, the late Jim Flaherty, had been sounding the alarm from the beginning. On February 12, 2014, he said, and I quote:

I think income-splitting needs a long, hard analytical look...to see who it affects and to what degree, because I'm not sure that overall, it benefits our society.

He added:

It benefits some parts of the Canadian population a lot and other parts of the Canadian population virtually not at all.

The Conservative government insisted on introducing income splitting anyway.

Income splitting has gotten a lot of coverage in the national media as well. In an article in the Financial Post, on February 14, 2014, entitled “Forget income splitting, Canada needs to cut tax rates”, the Fraser Institute said that Jim Flaherty was right about income splitting and that this measure does almost nothing to stimulate the economy or improve Canada's competitiveness.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation said:

[This program has] been denounced by every credible economic think tank, representing every shade of the political spectrum. Even the federal finance department has weighed in—that analysis is so damning that nearly everything but the commas was redacted before it was released to the public.

The only person who believes in and cares about income splitting is the Prime Minister. It should be noted that he stands to get $2,000 from this measure, but single-parent families will not get a penny from it. We know full well that even within the Conservative caucus, not everyone is comfortable with this patently unfair measure.

With a middle class that is having difficulty making ends meet, a collapsing job market and zero economic growth, we could surely find a better way to spend the $2 billion. The Liberal Party is proposing to give back to the middle class and stimulate economic growth.

To conclude with income splitting, I also want to talk about the misinformation being spread by the Conservatives to the effect that the Liberal Party of Canada is against income splitting for seniors. That is false. We are against the $2 billion income splitting measure in this bill.

Another measure in this omnibus bill concerns the TFSA, or the tax-free savings account. We have to talk about this. I will come back to the fact that this is an omnibus bill, which is really ridiculous.

I would like to clearly state that the Liberal Party supports TFSAs. In their current form, they are an excellent savings vehicle. However, the government has decided to double the TFSA limit in this bill, and that is not right.

Some incorrect statistics are being quoted about TFSAs. Let us clarify. According to the Department of Finance, 18% of Canadians contribute to a TFSA and 40% of those people make the maximum contribution of $5,500. That means that only 7% of Canadians make the maximum contribution of $5,500 to a TFSA.

The government likes to bandy those numbers about and often says that families that earn $60,000 will benefit from the TFSA. Let us clarify. Before TFSAs were introduced, families were struggling to save money. When that measure was introduced, they took all of their savings from previous years and contributed the maximum amount to a TFSA.

The Conservative government always likes to boast that families that earn $60,000 or more can contribute the maximum amount to a TFSA. However, let us be clear. How can a family with a gross income of $60,000 a year that files a tax return manage to save $20,000 per family or $10,000 per person? I do not know any Canadian who earns $60,000 and can save $10,000 a year. That is completely unacceptable.

Still on the topic of the TFSA, the Parliamentary Budget Officer's job is to keep us informed, and he thinks that one-third of the cost of the TFSA will be borne by the provinces. We now understand why the provinces hate this proposal.

Since TFSAs are not taken into account in the calculation of income-tested benefits, old age security cheques will start showing up in the mailboxes of seniors who do not need it. What did the Conservatives do? They have no problem taking away these payments from the seniors aged 65 to 67 who need it most. That is the reality.

We now know why the Conservative government chose to push the retirement age to 67. It wanted to save some money at the expense of seniors aged 65 to 67 who are most in need of help. Why? In order to finance gifts for the wealthy or those who are already well off. A society is judged on the basis of how it treats its most vulnerable. That is worth mentioning.

Let us talk about other measures. The universal child care benefit, the UCCB, is a good idea to give back to families and enable them to take care of their children. It is expensive to raise children. Putting money in the pockets of parents helps them make their own choices about how best to raise their kids.

The thing is, not all Canadian families have the same needs. The families of the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada do not need this benefit, this enhanced version of the universal child care benefit, the UCCB, that provides $100 here and $60 there. That money should be going to middle-class families and those working hard to join it. Giving money back to those who really need it should be the priority.

That brings us to the plan that the Liberal Party leader announced on Monday. It is clear. The plan says that we will give money back to the middle class and stimulate growth through very simple, generous, ambitious and, above all, tax-free measures. The Conservatives think that Canadian taxpayers are not smart enough to understand some of the measures they have come up with. The UCCB is taxable. The Conservatives dole out $100 here and there, but it is not really $100 because the following year, people have to include that amount in their tax return and pay tax on it. That is unacceptable. Why play with tax measures like that? It is fundamentally a very complex law, and the measures they are proposing add to that complexity.

We say no. We need to simplify it as much as possible. For instance, if a family has a child under the age of six and an income of $30,000, we will give that family the non-taxable amount of $6,400. That amount is net and crystal clear. If, however, that child is between the ages of 6 and 17, we will give that family a Canada child benefit worth $5,400. It is clear. Those amounts are based on income, and there are other benefits that families with higher incomes will receive.

Those are two simple measures. First of all, there is a general 7% tax cut for the middle class. This measure will really benefit all Canadians. The second measure is the Canada child benefit. I do not think that the Prime Minister's family or the Liberal leader's family need to receive the universal child care benefit, as I said. Let us give it to the people who really need it the most. That is what our measure does.

This is a clear and ambitious plan, as I said. All of that is in the bill, and the government introduced an omnibus bill. I should be talking about that in my speech. There are some measures in the bill that we agree with. However, since it is an omnibus bill, we will be voting against it. It contains some important measures, but for us, the most important thing to remember is that everything I talked about is for the rich. The Liberal Party has presented an ambitious and generous plan for all families, because we need to give money back to middle-class families and stimulate economic growth, which will be good for Canada as a whole.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Bourassa for his presentation.

I agreed with what he said in the first few seconds of his speech when he characterized the government's budget as strictly an election budget. I thought to myself that we may have found a rallying point. A few seconds later, I realized that, in fact, his introduction served only to give himself a turn at electioneering, but on behalf of the Liberals this time.

I did not really hear him talk about measures that seemed especially important, that are in the budget and that would help Canadians not only get a cheque at the end of the month, but also enjoy a well-paying job and a decent living.

This can be achieved with the help of small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the engine of the Canadian economy. The NDP moved a motion to reduce the tax rate for SMEs. My Liberal colleague voted against that motion. Our proposal is found in part or in essence in the budget, but over a much broader period of time.

What is the Liberals' position on this tax cut for SMEs?

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his question.

As he said in the first part of his question, this is an election budget. I am pleased to hear that the NDP agrees. We should also mention that not only is this an election budget, but it also only helps the rich and the wealthy.

However, he alluded to our plan. The straight answer to his question is that there is nothing in this budget to stimulate economic growth. To that end, we are proposing measures that will give money back to the middle class. A number of retail companies have recently closed their doors because people have no money to spend.

Therefore, we are going to stimulate the economy in such a way as to ensure we have sustainable growth in Canada.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech. It is truly edifying to listen to my colleague, the member for Bourassa, talk about the economy.

I would like to share some comments with the House.

Middle-class families often have children about to enter university. They need money to pay for tuition. We note that many middle-class Canadians have a great deal of debt. If they were to find themselves with some disposable income, would it be more attractive for them to invest in an education savings plan? As we know, the return is quite high. I believe that the federal government contributes 20¢ on every dollar contributed, up to a maximum federal contribution of $500. Furthermore, the Government of Quebec kicks in some money. Therefore, the return is quite impressive.

Is this one of the best investments to make with disposable income for a middle-class family that hopes to pay for its children's tuition, for example?

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Lac-Saint-Louis for his question.

I agree with him that education is very expensive. These days, we meet many families—and I imagine he does in his riding too—who do not know how they are going to pay for their children's university education. It is therefore important to make those investments, but again, people need to have money to do that. Here is the plan that we are proposing to allow these people to have money in their pockets so that they can set some aside for their children's education.

Very briefly, let us look at a typical family, one that earns $45,000 and has a child who is 16 and a child who is four, for example. This family is already thinking about university. Our measure will give that family $4,000 more than this Conservative government is proposing. We are going to give them $9,850 because they have children. That will allow them to set some money aside and invest in these plans and help pay for their children's education.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my neighbour in the House of Commons. I must confess that I really like the Haitian accent. It is so beautiful.

However, I have a really serious question for my colleague about Parliament's abusive use of omnibus budget bills.

Does the Liberal Party's position involve doing away with such abuse? I think that all the opposition parties have to commit to doing away with this sort of abuse before the next election.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that we are neighbours and that we have had some excellent conversations here in the House and in the halls. I thank the member for her well-put question. I congratulate her for making the effort to speak French.

I must tell my colleague that we are against omnibus bills. A few years ago the current government claimed that it was against these bills, which at the time might have had 20 or 30 pages. Now we have a bill with more than 175 pages. It is not unusual for the Conservatives to introduce a bill that is more than 200 pages long, with everything bulked in together.

If we want to do a good job as parliamentarians, it is important for us to have bills that are more focused so that we can vote on as few elements as possible when we are debating bills.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, who spoke a lot about the Liberals' suggestions to help young mothers with young children. I would like to share a statistic from the Childcare Resources and Research Unit, which stated that in 2012, just 22.5% of children under the age of six had access to quality, regulated child care services. More than 73% of mothers of these children are in the workforce. The Liberals' proposal will simply not be enough, in light of the lack of quality, regulated child care spaces for children and given that child care can cost more than $1,500 a month per child. Their proposal does not acknowledge the existing problem.

Is the member prepared to acknowledge these facts and to look at the NDP's new proposal to provide meaningful assistance to women who need child care spaces so that they too can go to work and improve their quality of life?

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Before I respond specifically to the daycare and child care aspect she mentioned, I would like to respond to her comment that the Liberal Party of Canada's proposal will not be enough. We presented a $22 billion plan. Consistency is important. The NDP keeps asking where we will find the money, and now they are saying that the amount is not enough. I just said that we are going to give $6,400 to families for each child under the age of 6.

When it comes to child care, we did that. With Ken Dryden, we put forward measures that both the NDP and the Conservatives rejected. Now the NDP is back with its $15 proposal. The New Democrats are offering that $15 proposal regardless of a person's income, regardless of whether they earn over $200,000 or just $15,000. We have to be fair and equitable. We have given Canadians a plan that is fair, generous, equitable and tax-free.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to budget 2015 and Bill C-59, an act that would implement various measures contained within the budget. The budget contains many measures that I know Canadians are looking forward to seeing put in place.

Before I go on, I should inform the House that I plan to split my time with my hon. colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette.

I would like to congratulate the Minister of Finance on his first budget and, especially, for all of the hard work that he has put into it. It has long been my view that governments should spend when spending is necessary and save taxpayers' money when saving is possible. This budget controls spending within a balanced budget and provides important tax breaks and cost-saving measures for taxpayers. For this, I congratulate the minister on his very important work.

I would like to acknowledge the work that was carried out by the previous minister of finance, my good friend, Mr. Jim Flaherty. Mr. Flaherty paved the way for this budget during his time as the minister of finance. He oversaw important stimulus funding during the recession and reeled in spending following the recession. His success as minister of finance has allowed Canada to be in the strong economic position that it is in today.

In terms of the budget itself, I am pleased to see that it is balanced. A balanced budget allows governments to cut taxes and pay down debt. It should be noted that before the 2008 recession, this government had already paid down $37 billion of federal debt. This has allowed Canada to emerge from the recession as a global economic leader with the lowest net debt to GDP ratio in the G7.

Canadians expect the government to work within its means, as they have to. That is why having this balanced budget is so important. The budget is balanced while at the same time maintaining record transfers to the provinces for health and education, and keeping the overall federal tax burden at its lowest level in more than 50 years.

This is no easy feat, but maintaining balanced budgets when possible is what is expected of any government. That is why I am pleased to see that the government has introduced legislation to ensure that all future budgets, except during times of recession, are balanced.

I recently hosted a community teleforum for residents in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, which allowed constituents to vote on several poll questions and call in to express support for or concern about actions of the government. There were several callers who expressed their appreciation that the government had balanced the books. Furthermore, I asked participants to vote on a poll question related to the new balanced budget legislation. The result was an immense amount of support for this legislation.

Having discussed the efforts that the government has taken to balance the budget, I would now like to highlight several measures contained within this implementation act that would greatly benefit residents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and, indeed, all Canadians.

The first measure is the reduction in the small business tax rate from 11% to 9% by the year 2019. This measure will affect 100% of the small businesses in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and will support the local economies of the many small communities in the area. It is estimated that this measure will reduce taxes for small businesses by $2.7 billion over the 2015-16 to 2019-20 fiscal years. This is an extremely positive measure that is very widely supported.

Another measure that I am supportive of is the increase in the lifetime capital gains exemption from $800,000 to $1 million for owners of farms and fishing businesses. Several farmers in my riding over the past couple of years have expressed support for this measure and we are very happy to see that it is in there. They realize that it will keep more money in the pockets of farmers who are trying to pass on their farms to the next generation. Without this, when they transfer capital, it will otherwise be lost in taxes. This is a huge benefit. In all my work and time on the agriculture committee, and the minister was there today, we are always looking at different ways that allow young farmers to get into the business, and this is a big one.

The lifetime capital gains exemption was increased in budget 2007 from $500,000 to $750,000, and then increased in 2013 to $800,000 and now up to $1 million. That is double over the course of those years. Since 2007, it has been more than doubled, and that is great news for all farmers.

Furthermore, increasing the tax-free savings account annual contribution limit to $10,000 is a very positive measure for many residents in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I have already had several constituents contact me asking when they can begin investing more in their TFSAs. I have been pleased to inform them that this measure is effective for the 2015 taxation year. Despite what some people have said about this measure, the TFSA helps many seniors and low and middle-income Canadians save their money. In fact, more than half of tax-free savings account holders earn less than $42,000 per year, and nearly 700,000 seniors who earn less than $22,000 have a TFSA. Therefore, this measure supports a wide range of Canadians.

Along with the TFSA, seniors rely on their registered retirement income funds, or RRIFs as they are commonly known. Many seniors welcomed the announcement that budget 2015 would reduce the minimum withdrawal factors for their RRIFs. Currently, seniors are required to withdraw 7.38% of their RRIFs in the year they turn 71. Although I cannot remember the year, we actually raised that age from 69 to 71. The percentage then increases each year until age 94, when it is capped at 20%.

The new RRIF factors would range from 5.28% at age 71 to 18.79% at age 94. This would allow seniors to have greater flexibility when drawing on their retirement savings and it would also reduce their risk of outliving their savings. It is important to point out that seniors raised that money during their working years, and we have enabled them to use it to enhance their retirement, but more on their terms versus the government's.

Finally, the bill would also implement several important measures to support our veterans and their families. This would be done by providing a new retirement income security benefit to moderately to severely disabled veterans, expanding access to the permanent impairment allowance for disabled veterans, and creating a new tax-free family caregiver relief benefit to recognize caregivers of veterans. These important measures would ensure that our brave men and women would have the support they need and most certainly deserve.

In conclusion, I would like to highlight the success of this and previous budgets since 2006.

Since 2006, a typical two-earner Canadian family of four will receive tax relief and increased benefits of up to $6,600. This is due to the fact that the government has consistently been lowering taxes and introducing support measures. I believe we are up to around 140 different taxes that this government has cut. I stand to be corrected on that number, but I believe I am pretty close. That is a lot.

When we hear from constituents, some will say that a certain tax cut does not benefit them. One thing I remind constituents is that not every tax cut benefits every Canadian. For example, seniors will not benefit from what we have done for families with young children, the same way young people will not benefit from things put in place for seniors. Overall, every Canadian will benefit from at least one of our cuts.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully, particularly to the beginning of my colleague's speech. He said something about how budgets should be crafted, which I thought was interesting. I then listened to talk about what was in the budget.

Here is the problem with what has been put forward by my colleague. He forgot to mention that the Conservatives took the approach of a fire sale to balance the budget. They cut public services, veterans, meat inspection. As a result of that, 19,000 jobs are gone. The Conservatives then had a fire sale on General Motors, which they had to be pushed and shoved to respond to it in 2008 when they denied there was a recession. The member forgot to mention that. Then they have put a cap income splitting that will only benefit 15%. I know the member's riding well. A lot of people are hurting and suffering. They will not benefit from income splitting.

I would like the member to address the fact that this budget will leave many people behind and the fact that the Conservatives have approached this balance by selling off assets, raiding employment insurance and are not helping everyday people.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend across the way is wrong in quite a few areas. He touched on food inspection at the start. I am a former farmer, although I still have my land being farmed. I take offence to that comment because we have the safest food in the world. We have a great system to ensure it stays safe. The job is being done. We have to give credit where it is due.

As to his comments at the end, people in every part of the country struggle from time to time, but he is wrong on the income splitting. This is wanted, it is needed and it will be widely appreciated once it is in place.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will give the hon. member a hypothetical scenario and ask him what he would do.

Let us say he was the head of a middle-class family with young or adolescent children and he wanted to save some money for them to go to university. Maybe he was given some extra money or perhaps his debt was finally paid off, although we know Canadian families are very much in debt these days. Maybe he had some extra cash around, perhaps owing to the Liberal child benefit when it is implemented. Would the hon. member put that money in his TFSA or would he put the money in an RESP, which would earn probably a 25% per year return?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, the easy answer is that people want choices. If people want to choose to put it in an RESP, or in a TSFA or to keep it in a shoebox at home, that is their prerogative.

However, Canadians do not want the Liberals' child care plan, especially not the NDP's child care plan. They want the choice. They want the money back in their pockets, like our government has done, and they will decide how to distribute it.

I speak with a bit of knowledge on this because two of my sons have young kids. They are in daycare. In fact, my wife is babysitting two of them today. That is how we help out our family and my kids.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Consular]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the expensive plan the NDP had, which is the state-run daycare it wants to put in place. We know full well that would cost billions of dollars and impact about 5% of the kids.

I would like him to talk a little more about the importance of a balanced budget. I think he mentioned that we brought in $6,600 in benefits and decreased taxes through all kinds of things, TSFAs, GST reductions, tax credits over the years, income splitting, apprenticeship training programs, student grants and those kinds of things.

We are at the point now where we have a balanced budget, and I am very proud of that. However, could he talk a bit about the importance of a balanced budget? Both parties on the other side are talking about increasing taxes. Every family in the country would be hit with that. When the opposition parties think of fairness, they think of taxing every family equally.

Would the hon. member talk a bit about balanced budgets and our program around that?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Finally a good question, Mr. Speaker, from my colleague from Saskatchewan.

He is absolutely right. If I had a list of all the tax cuts and benefits this government has made, you would probably cut me off, Mr. Speaker, because I would not have time to read them all.

The member comes from a farming background. He knows what it is like to owe money, to borrow money to enhance his farming operation, but he also knows at the end of the day he has to pay that back. We cannot keep running deficits and building up debt, whether it is a small business loan, a bank loan or a student loan. We have to pay the mortgage off some day.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in my short period of time, I would like to cut to the chase very quickly and talk about two letters I received from two of my constituents who are directly affected by this budget. These are average, rural Manitobans who are not rich by any stretch.

First, I received a letter from Ms. Mackenzie Danard, a mother from Swan River, Manitoba. She wrote me to say, “This helps alot for single parents”, because she is one of them. She said, “Thank you for helping us raise our children”. So much for the idea that this a budget for the rich. It is not.

I also received a letter from Ms. Wendy McDonald from Newdale, Manitoba. Ms. Macdonald was in Ottawa just last week and she wrote me to say, “The reason we were able to afford our trip to Ottawa was due to our income tax refund which was largely unexpected due to income splitting. Our family chooses to put the child care benefit money we receive directly into an RRSP for our two children. I will be one of the Canadians that will benefit from the increased allowance on TFSAs because saving is important to me and allows me to be fiscally responsible in my own household”.

It was shameful for the leader of the Liberal Party to say yesterday, “benefiting every single family is not what is fair”. For these two families, this is fair.

I want to make a point about the NDP members especially. They dislike ambition, they dislike merit and they dislike hard work. We are the party truly representing working people and this budget is designed for people who work hard and play by the rules.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette will have eight minutes remaining in time for his remarks when the House next returns to debate on this question.

Bill C-59—Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Bill C-59—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, not more than two further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the bill;

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the second day allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite all hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so that the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. leader in the House for the official opposition.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is another sad day. This is the 96th time this government has invoked closure or time allocation in this Parliament. No other government has done that. Canada has never had a government that has abused time allocation and closure as much as this one has. This is a sign of arrogance and incompetence because many of the bills that the government has introduced in the House of Commons have been rejected by the courts. They reject the legislation because the government does not really double-check its bills as much as it needs to.

Sadly, this is the 96th time in this Parliament, which is the worst record of all time. It is three times worse than any other previous government for bringing in closure and time allocation.

The government is going to say that it is trying to do this for our veterans. We will recall that after years of neglect of our nation's veterans and years of just refusing, cutting back on services and treating our nation's veterans with disdain, the Conservatives finally introduced a bill that would help to improve the situation. That is Bill C-58, which has sat on the order paper all week. For days, the NDP has been standing up and asking for unanimous consent to get Bill C-58 for veterans into committee so that veterans can start getting the relief that is called for. Instead, the government is saying that it is going to make them wait even longer with Bill C-59.

The question is very simple. Why are the Conservatives playing so many games with veterans? Why do they not heed the message from Alberta and, instead of showing such arrogance and incompetence, why do they not work with the opposition parties so that they can get good legislation that is not rejected by the courts?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-59 is in line with our government's plan for low taxes and a balanced budget to promote employment, growth and security. The budget implementation bill contains measures that were announced in economic action plan 2015. Many of these measures are tax-related, but they all achieve one main goal: Canada's long-term prosperity.

It is common practice, even for Liberal governments, to include various measures in a budget. That is nothing new or out of the ordinary.

As to the question about veterans, our Conservative government places the highest priority on making sure that veterans and their families have the support and the services that they need when they need them. Our government made significant progress in key areas, such as long-term financial security, increased family support and removing barriers of eligibility for certain financial benefits.

Canadian Armed Forces veterans who are moderately to seriously disabled as a result of their service will soon have additional benefits after age 65 and new money to support family caregivers. In addition, those from the Canadian reserve forces will receive fair financial benefits from VAC.

These new initiatives are evidence of our government's commitment to ensuring that Canadian veterans and their families are treated with care, compassion and respect.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, once again, we have time allocation on the government's financial piece of legislation, which I would argue is unfair. The Minister of Finance needs to recognize the reality. His taxation policies would be to the advantage of Canada's wealthiest, and he is asking Canada's middle class to pay for that tax giveaway.

This is not a budget that would deal with or that has any concept of what it really takes to have economic and job growth. There is a lot of contrast. This is why we need to have a thorough debate on this budget.

Let me give an example. The contrast of the Liberal Party would propose to make the tax system fairer and cut the middle-class tax rate by 7%. That would be a $3-billion tax cut for those who need it the most. The Liberal plan would also provide one bigger, fair, tax-free monthly cheque to help families with the high cost of raising their kids.

My question for the Minister of Finance is why does he not recognize how unfair his tax proposals are to the middle class and those who are aspiring to become a part of Canada's middle class? Why does he not instead adopt good, solid, fair taxation policies and stimulate Canada's economy?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud that our budget will provide benefits primarily to low-income families. We will do that in a number of ways.

The family benefit program, of course, will overwhelmingly benefit low- and middle-income Canadians, with two-thirds of the benefits going to them, and 25% to families earning less than $30,000.

The tax-free savings account is a wonderful way for middle-class and lower-income Canadians to save for their kids' education and for their retirement. That is why 11 million Canadians have a TFSA, with the vast majority low- and middle-income earners, and 60% of those who contribute the maximum earn less than $60,000 a year. Therefore, it is amazing that the NDP and the Liberals would take away the TFSA increases, robbing the middle class and seniors of an extra opportunity to save.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Before we proceed, I have allowed a little flexibility on the first two questions, but from now on I will be holding all members, in both questions and responses, to one minute.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Minister of Finance that we are in the House of Commons of the Parliament of Canada. We are not in front of the media or in the middle of an election campaign. We are here to discuss a parliamentary procedure. We are MPs who are accountable to their constituents, but all the minister is doing is giving speeches that have already been given.

We are talking about the government's 96th time allocation motion, which will prevent members of the House from debating some of the complex issues in this bill.

The government does not seem to care about the repercussions of the decisions it is making.

The Conservatives keep doubling down. However, when they are doubling down constantly, in the end, we end up losing, and this is what is going to happen to the current Conservative government.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill would be a benefit to all Canadians. This bill will be debated in this House, and there will be plenty of opportunity to do that.

We are very pleased about our commitment to introduce many tax measures that would benefit Canadians, such as our commitment to introducing balanced budget legislation, to strengthening the Canadian Labour Code, to providing benefits to families and to providing tax relief to small businesses that are the basic generator of employment. Some 50% of employment is created by small businesses.

The previous Liberal government's budget bill contained dozens of different pieces of legislation, and if I may say, it is not the committee's study that the opposition members really care about; they want to stop the necessary and vital economic reforms in the bill.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see the Minister of Finance in the House of Commons answering questions. In the past, this was something that ministers of finance did on a regular basis, because they were accountable to Parliament. They felt that participating in question period and responding to questions was absolutely part of their job. We hope that this participation in the House of Commons and accountability to Parliament becomes more of a regular occurrence for the current minister, who has only participated in seven question periods in 2015.

My question to the minister is on the budget implementation act, which contains Nixonian changes to ATIP legislation to try to cover up the information that Canadians deserve about the long gun registry. It would also change the Copyright Act and actually bring in new parliamentary security. However, with all these things that have nothing to do with the economy, why is the minister not focused on providing Canadians with a plan for jobs and growth at a time when the Canadian economy has flatlined?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the last time I attended question period, the Liberal opposition had no questions for me. The previous time, there were seven questions, which I was pleased to answer, and I will, of course, continue to do that. However, it is also my responsibility to communicate to Canadians around the country about the measures that we are proposing for the budget bill, and I have been doing that from coast to coast.

With respect to the long gun registry, our Conservative government has fulfilled its commitment to end the wasteful and ineffective registry once and for all. It is still possible to access outdated copies of the long gun registry through access to information legislation. However, the will of Parliament has been clear and all copies of the registry were to be destroyed. This technical amendment would address that.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, this particular bill contains a provision that is very important to the protection of Canadian intellectual property, which is the extension of privilege to patent agents in Canada. The Intellectual Property Institute of Canada has been lobbying for this for close to a decade. My colleague Heather Mueller, who is a patent agent in this field and is part of this particular committee, talked about how her colleagues actually cried tears of joy when they saw this, because it would have such an impact on our country's ability to protect intellectual property.

I am wondering if my colleague could explain why it is so important to pass this bill in a timely manner, especially given this particular clause.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister of state for her question and for the great work she is doing for Canadians.

Our government is dedicated to cutting red tape and supporting businesses, and that is why we created a statutory privilege to protect confidential communication between intellectual property agents and their clients. These changes would help Canadian businesses avoid costly litigation and remain competitive.

We are also listening to businesses and making sure that our intellectual property system responds to their needs. That is why we have cut red tape and made it easier for businesses to use Canada's intellectual property system and to seek the legal protections they deserve.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again in dismay to find that an omnibus budget bill is being pushed through with limitation on debate in what was supposed to be our second day here discussing the legislation.

I also note, as other colleagues have noted, that this omnibus bill contains many measures that have nothing to do with the purview of the Minister of Finance, who is here to answer questions about limiting debate. I do not know how we are going to adequately get to the multiple levels of different bills. I am particularly concerned, as other members have mentioned, about these very bizarre retroactive changes to remove a situation in law back to not only before the bill was passed but to the point when it was first introduced.

Referring to the long gun registry, Professor Kazmierski from Carleton has noted that the same government is now using omnibus legislation to introduce retroactive limitations on our already limited access rights and to potentially eliminate access to a material that we currently would have access to, and that this should be alarming to anyone concerned about the effectiveness of our democratic process.

My question to the minister is this. Will this bill be split into many pieces, with multiple committees studying it? Will we have time to ensure that we adequately study, for instance, the security of Parliament Hill? I do not see how we can.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

There will be, Mr. Speaker, ample time to debate this measure. I will repeat that in respect of the long gun registry, our Conservative government was pleased to end the wasteful and ineffective registry once and for all. Due to a bureaucratic loophole, it was still possible to access outdated copies of the registry through access to information. This clearly goes against the will of Parliament, and all copies of the registry should be destroyed. A technical amendment reinforces this point.

As to the omnibus bill, it supports our balanced budget, our low-tax plan for jobs, growth and security. All measures in the budget implementation bill were in economic action plan 2015. Many of the measures are tax related and accomplish our key goal of long-term prosperity and security.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Finance is missing the point. The problem is that if there were a loophole with the long gun registry, it should not be corrected through an omnibus budget implementation bill. There should be a stand-alone bill. Procedurally, this is wrong because the public safety committee will not be able to propose and adopt amendments. It might make recommendations that will go back to finance. It has nothing to do with it.

Is the minister not a bit ashamed to be part of a government that will have imposed time allocation 96 times to force bills down the throats of Canadians? Whatever the government's policies and promises are is fine, but it should do it properly.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is common practice, including for Liberal governments, to include a number of different measures in a budget. There is nothing new or groundbreaking in this practice.

The bill, as I said, would support our plan for low taxes, jobs, growth, and security. The bill is balanced fiscally and is balanced socially. This is in contrast to the refusal of the opposition to support any of these job-creating measures. I will reiterate, because the point does not seem to be getting across to the opposition: there is nothing new or groundbreaking in this practice.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am disheartened because, as you know, every time a time allocation motion is moved, that means not every member will have a chance to speak to the bill. In this case, we are talking about the budget, the most important bill of the year.

My region is going through tough economic times. The last time I checked, the unemployment rate in the urban areas was the highest in Canada. Our forestry industry is struggling, and so is the aluminum sector. I have a lot to say about this budget, but unfortunately, the government is preventing me from delivering a full speech on it.

I want to know why the Conservative government has such little respect for duly elected members. There are 308 members in the House of Commons. Things will likely only get worse when there are 338 and more people want to speak to bills.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we will allow enough time to debate the bill, which offers many benefits to all Canadians, including those living in the opposition member's riding.

The economic action plan proposes to change the funding plan for small businesses in Canada. This is a good example of measures that will allow more small businesses to submit an application for funding and will provide larger loans. These changes were proposed by stakeholders and could amount to an additional $100 million a year in loans. By improving access to funding, our government is continuing to encourage and support the growth and success of small businesses in Canada.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that debate on the bill is going to be limited, because there are so many Canadians who will not be getting anything from the bill, and they want to have a voice.

Why is there no northern strategy by the government opposite? In the north we hear of people looking in the dumps for food, because it is not affordable. We hear of people sleeping in vans and tents in -40° temperatures, because there is no housing for them. We hear of people going without proper medical care, because they do not have access to it.

I ask the minister, why no northern strategy? Why no strategy for Inuit people across the north? Why is his government not doing anything to help those who need it?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that our government has transferred to the provinces and territories record amounts. In fact, since we took office, the amount has increased by 63% over that of the previous government. There has been funding for health care, funding for social programs, and funding for equalization. There is also money for social housing. We have brought down taxes for all Canadians and have taken one million Canadians off the tax rolls. Our Prime Minister has placed a priority on the north that we have never seen before in Canadian history, and we are all proud of that.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's seniors, like those in my riding of Oakville, have helped build our country and make it great. That is why I am proud that no government in Canadian history has done more to stand up for seniors than this Conservative government. For example, we enhanced the new horizons for seniors program to combat elder abuse and to engage seniors in their communities. We put money back into the pockets of seniors by legislating pension income splitting and by introducing the largest GIS increase in over 25 years. We cut taxes, removed 380,000 low-income seniors from the tax roles completely, and created the landmark tax-free savings account.

My question for theMinister of Finance is this: what would the budget bill do to support Canadian seniors?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that significant question and for his commitment to seniors in Oakville, and indeed around the country.

I am pleased to assure the member that with budget 2015, we are introducing a new home accessibility tax credit to provide seniors with the ability to stay in their homes longer, if they choose.

We are also giving seniors more choice when it comes to managing their retirement income by reducing the minimum withdrawal requirements for registered retirement income funds.

What is more, we are proudly increasing the tax-free savings account annual contribution limit to $10,000. About 600,000 seniors across Canada aged 65 and over with incomes below $60,000 are currently maxing out their TFSA room. This is a measure that will primarily benefit low- and middle-income Canadians.

This is a very important venture, and these initiatives will benefit seniors right across Canada.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that we are in a situation where we are here debating the use of time allocation for the 96th time. Rather than responding to why that is, why the government feels that there is no need to debate any of its bills, we are getting speeches on cherry-picked items from the budget.

Why are we again, for the 96th time, in time allocation for a budget bill, arguably the most important document we will debate in this House, as it affects all Canadians? Why are we not giving it its just time to have a fulsome debate with as many members of this House as want to participate?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have continually heard, throughout the past half-hour, complaints from the opposition that there is no opportunity to debate. Perhaps if the opposition members asked questions on the measures in this bill we could discuss them in a little more depth. However, all they want to talk about is the fact that they do not have an opportunity to talk, while they are talking.

Our government is focused on what matters to Canadians: helping them make ends meet by lowering taxes and securing Canada's long-term prosperity. We are supporting a balanced budget. We are supporting lower taxes. We are supporting incentives for manufacturers. We are reducing the small business tax rate. We are reducing the minimum withdrawal rate for RRIFs. We are doubling the TFSA. We are introducing the home accessibility tax credit. We are introducing a new retirement income security benefit and a compassionate care benefit, and we are providing the needed resources for our brave men and women in uniform.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is incredible to see a finance minister who is so unfamiliar with the parliamentary rules in place that allow us 30 minutes to debate a time allocation motion. That is the motion being debated.

The only justification he gave for having a budget implementation bill with so many different measures is that the Liberals have done this before. I would like him to tell us if he has some more convincing reasons for having a budget implementation bill that contains so many measures and if he has an explanation other than the fact that the Liberals did even worse. I would like a more convincing explanation.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, and so it goes on. The opposition members do not want to discuss the bill, they want to discuss the fact that they cannot discuss the bill. However, we want to discuss the specific measures that will benefit Canadians, the four million Canadian families, seniors and the middle class.

The fact remains that the previous Liberal government amended dozens and dozens of different legislative measures. Let us be clear: the opposition members do not really care about studying the bill in committee; they would rather stop the vital economic reforms that the bill contains.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, another group that has been overlooked in this budget and by the economic policies of the current government is young people. We now have in this country 169,000 fewer jobs for students than there were before the downturn. We have seen cuts since 2005 to the Canada summer jobs program. I see it particularly in my riding in Charlottetown and right across Prince Edward Island, but this is happening right across the country.

At the same time, when we watch the playoffs on TV, we see expensive ads, at $100,000 a pop, and that money could be much better spent on creating jobs for young people. Why is it not?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to communicate with Canadians and provide them with the information they need to access the benefits we are offering them. By way of example, there are some 200,000 Canadians who have a right to some of the family benefits being offered, in particular young families, who have a right to have access to the universal childcare benefit but are not registered. We need to provide them with that information.

With respect to the Canada Labour Code, we are providing more benefits to interns. We are providing job matching. We are providing loans to students, and we are reducing the dependency on parents' contributions. We are doing a great deal for youth right across this country.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians will remember the Conservatives' omnibus bills. They will also remember the time limits placed on debating bills. The Conservatives will have a place in history, but not for the right reasons. They will go down in history for systematically imposing closure, from the beginning, once they obtained a majority. Their reputation for governing with this kind of contempt for the parliamentary process and the opposition will stick with the Conservatives for generations to come.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would rather discuss the bill. As I said, our government is focused on what matters to Canadians and on helping the middle class by reducing the tax burden and securing Canada's long-term prosperity. Economic action plan 2015 will provide benefits directly to families, create jobs, stimulate economic growth and improve Canadians' security, all while helping us return to a balanced budget. I am very proud of that.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #404

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I declare the motion carried.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I want to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

The House resumed from May 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Second Reading

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my speech by simply saying thank goodness. This is this government's last budget bill because there are only 158 days before this government is replaced by a government that is competent when it comes to finance and the economy, and particularly when it comes to respecting Parliament and parliamentary institutions.

I was here during the debate on the time allocation motion, which just wrapped up. It was unbelievable. We could feel the contempt rolling in waves off the members, particularly the Minister of Finance. I had the pleasure of working with his predecessor, Mr. Flaherty. Although I respect the current minister as a person, as finance minister, he cannot hold a candle to Mr. Flaherty, who was at least diligent and passionate about what he was doing, even though we may have disagreed with the direction the government was taking. The current finance minister is simply taking orders from the Prime Minister's Office and saying what they tell him to say, while completely disregarding parliamentary tradition.

Once again, we are talking about an omnibus bill. This bill does indeed deal with measures that were debated in the budget, but it also includes all kinds of other measures that have absolutely nothing to do with the budget we were given. These measures should be given serious study by the appropriate committees because of their ramifications and consequences.

Once again, we are in a situation where most members of the House, who represent the 100,000 or so people in their ridings, will be unable to even speak to this bill. Speeding up the passage of bills the way the government does, especially for something as important as a budget bill, is not necessarily a good thing for it to do. In addition to trying to pass bills quickly, they try to prevent people from getting the extra research time they need to uncover flaws in these bills and gaps that undermine the credibility and efficiency of government initiatives. We have seen that in the past, and we will see it again this time with this budget bill.

As I mentioned in the past, when I had the opportunity to debate other budget bills, this government seems to have a certain number of criteria that is uses when drafting and introducing its budget bills. It has eight main criteria. One of them is obviously the size of the bills. In this case, we are dealing with a bill that is over 150 pages long. In fact, the French version is 167 pages.

The government believes that a budget bill must amend a minimum of about 10 laws. When I say amend, I mean create, amend or eliminate about 10 laws. In this case, the budget bill contains 20 divisions that amend about 20 different laws. Why does the government not introduce 20 separate bills to pass new laws or amend existing legislation? It is because the government simply wants to include them all in an omnibus bill to expedite the process. That shows the government's contempt for this Parliament.

Another criterion that the government uses is that the budget bill must address many issues that have nothing to do with tax or fiscal policy. This bill contains amendments to the National Energy Board Act, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Industrial Design Act. Those laws have nothing to do with the budget that was presented.

Another criterion that the government always seems to use is that the budget bill must create new laws. Once again, this bill creates two new laws: the federal balanced budget act and the prevention of terrorist travel act. These two new pieces of legislation will be created and discussed at the same time as the many other measures set out in this budget bill.

Another criterion that the government always seems to use is that its budget bills must always contain provisions that concentrate power in the hands of various ministers. Again this time, we see that this bill gives discretionary powers to the President of the Treasury Board, among others, despite the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

The final three criteria that the government feels it must meet in this budget bill, as with past bills, relate to the presence of at least one legislative amendment to restrict the rights of workers and immigrants, and finally, one measure that deals with law and order. Those elements can be found once again in this budget bill, so the pattern is repeated here, and we have yet another mammoth omnibus bill.

The government is imposing time allocation. It is imposing conditions on the committee regarding its study of the proposed initiatives and measures. In the House, it is imposing constraints on independent members, who should be given the opportunity to have their say at report stage, especially since they are not members of the committee. With no regard whatsoever for parliamentary traditions or respect for democratic parliamentary practices, this government is quite happy to simply steamroll over everything, as though the House were merely an annoying obstacle to overcome in order to achieve its ends.

I know that the Minister of Finance was uncomfortable talking about time allocation. He kept returning to the subject of the debate, when we were discussing a motion regarding yet another gag order imposed by the Conservative government. He only wanted to talk about the budget. I will now talk about the measures and initiatives in the budget.

Although the government likes to brag about balancing the budget, I would remind the House that it was this very government that put us in a deficit situation in 2007-08, before the recession even began. In fact, if the balanced budget legislation had been passed or even proposed by this Conservative government when it was first elected nearly 10 years ago in 2006, this government would have already been in violation of its own law, even before the recession.

In fact, aside from the time when the government used up the entire existing surplus shortly after coming to power, this is the first time the budget has been balanced since 1912. Obviously, this government is boasting about the fact that, unlike the previous Liberal governments, it did not off-load the deficit to the provinces. The government is not wrong, because that is what the Liberals did to balance the budget in the 1990s. However, what it is not saying is that balancing the budget would have been impossible for this government if it had not dramatically reduced the contingency fund. It would have been impossible if the government had not, yet again, dipped into the EI surplus. It would have been impossible if it had not sold, at a loss, its GM shares. It took these three measures for the government to be able to boast about balancing the budget before the election.

That is not the mark of a competent government. That is not the mark of a government that shows competent economic leadership. That is the mark of an ultra-partisan government that is trying to score points at the expense of good management and sound financial administration.

Let us get back to the balanced budget act, because it is the first division of the part that deals with other measures. If we want to talk about a balanced budget act, I have no trouble doing so, but we should have talked about it separately. The Conservatives are being underhanded and at the end of their mandate are feeling the political heat because they know that their chances of forming the government in October 2015 are very slim. They just want to say that they are being responsible and they are going to limit subsequent governments' room to manoeuvre when it comes to managing the economy and public finances.

The Standing Committee on Finance heard from a number of witnesses who talked about the legislation and how it is applied in the rest of the country and where it has been implemented around the world. This kind of legislation often has perverse and negative effects that will not necessarily be found in this bill because there are so many loopholes that we can just assume that it is a symbolic gesture by a government that wants to look good.

As for the effectiveness of such legislation, the NDP has not yet had the opportunity to govern at the federal level, but we can look at what the provinces have done.

Since the early 1980s, the NDP has had the best record on balanced budgets among all the parties that have governed, at both the federal and provincial levels. In provinces that have had a New Democrat government, balanced budget legislation was not needed for the government to properly manage the provinces' finances. This tradition started with the first New Democrat government, in Saskatchewan, under Tommy Douglas, who managed to balance 17 consecutive budgets. Seventeen. He still found a way to bring in Canada's first public health care system. There is a way to provide quality services that the public can be proud of and still balance the budget.

That is not what we have seen from this government. Far from it. For 10 years now it has been mismanaging this country. Once again, I am mentioning the fact that it ran a deficit when Canada was not even in a recession. Now, 10 years later, the government is trying to make itself out to be a good manager. On the contrary, over the past 10 years this government has undermined Canada's potential to develop its own economy in a way that would benefit the entire population. The government could have supported the manufacturing sector and could have supported our exports, but it did not. The Conservatives can count themselves lucky that we can stack up against other countries whose job creation and economic records were often poorer than ours, as a result of the circumstances. This was not due to the Conservatives' good work, but rather to the situation being worse off in other countries, not necessarily because of their policies, but often because of their geographical context.

Obviously, I object to the government's desire to include measures that do not belong in a budget bill. One can argue that a balanced budget act is part of that. Obviously we are talking about public finances. However, there are other elements. For example, division 2 of part 3 is about other measures and enacts the prevention of terrorist travel act. We just had a long debate in the House and in committee on Bill C-51, which is about combatting terrorism. Putting a division about terrorist travel in a budget bill gives the impression that the government realized it forgot that. It looks like the government wanted to introduce Bill C-51 so quickly and it was so important to do things really fast that it forgot that aspect and had to sneak it in through the budget bill by saying that that aspect was there and could be debated anyway.

Again, contrary to what most Conservative Party backbenchers might think, our role in the House is not simply to approve the government's initiatives. It is our duty to thoroughly study proposed legislation. The role of the official opposition, and the opposition in general, is not just to oppose what the government does. There are some things we can even throw our support behind. Beyond this opposition role, it is also our role to make proposals and conduct reviews. Our fundamental role is to point out any flaws in the government's legislation so that the appropriate corrections can be made. This government is denying the fundamental role of the traditional structure and operation of the House of Commons. The government is so partisan and obtuse in its desire to leave its Conservative mark on this country that it does not seem to care one bit about the effectiveness or constitutionality of its bills.

We have here another example with division 2 of part 3 of the budget bill on the prevention of terrorist travel act. Why make changes to the Industrial Design Act, the Patent Act and the Trade-marks Act under the radar yet again? The last budget bill made the same types of changes to these laws. Is this a patch job? The government finds flaws and gaps and then quickly tries to fix them behind closed doors so that once again it does not appear to be too incompetent. That approach certainly gives that impression.

Another important initiative found in this section is the extension of copyright terms for sound recordings. This significant extension should be debated separately, either in the House or in committee.

Due to the new structure that the Conservative government has imposed, we can no longer even have an adequate debate in committee, because when we send a bill like this one to a committee—I imagine it would be the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in this case—only a two-hour meeting is scheduled. The minister speaks for about half an hour and then answers questions for an hour or an hour and a half.

The minister usually speaks for 15 to 30 minutes and answers questions for 15 to 30 minutes. Then there is time remaining to hear from perhaps four witnesses to talk about a fundamental amendment. Then the bill is usually submitted without amendment.

I had the opportunity to sit on the Standing Committee on Finance for the study of five budget bills. We studied over 2,500 pages and only one amendment was adopted by the government, which had a majority on these committees. Furthermore, it required a Conservative sub-amendment. A careful and rigorous examination of the measures proposed by the government simply does not happen, because this government systematically rejects criticism, even when it is constructive. It refuses to examine opportunities to improve the provisions it puts forward. That concludes my remarks on the proposals of the third division, even though I could have talked about them for a long time. Other members—although sadly not many—will have the opportunity to talk about this some more.

I would like to come back to some of the initiatives that will certainly be of interest to many members here. I am talking about the income splitting initiative proposed by the government. Income splitting will benefit only 15% of the population. By raising the contribution limit for TFSAs, the government is trying to confuse Canadians with all sorts of statistics that have nothing to do with reality. The reality is that raising the contribution limit for TFSAs from $5,500 to $10,000 will help only those who contribute the maximum amount.

Right now, only 17% or 18% of people with a TFSA contribute the maximum amount. They are the ones who will benefit from the increased contribution limit. Basically, raising the contribution limit for TFSAs will merely allow people to move their savings from one place to another, since TFSAs are not currently helping people to save money.

The government claims that the increased contribution limit will help two-thirds of those who contribute the maximum amount and who earn $60,000 or less. That gives the impression that two-thirds of Canadians contribute the maximum amount and that these people are all earning $60,000 or less. That is not true. It is two-thirds of the 17% or 18% of people who contribute the maximum amount who will benefit from this measure. That means that only a very small fraction of Canadians will benefit from this measure, which will be used more and more as a tax shelter when it was supposed to help people save money.

The members on this side of the House proposed several initiatives. The government adopted some of them and now it is boasting about them. Meanwhile, when we moved a motion in the House to lower the corporate or small business tax rate from 11% to 9%, the Conservatives and the Liberals voted against it.

We also moved a motion to extend the accelerated capital cost allowance for investment in machinery. The Conservatives and Liberals voted against that motion, but now that measure is included in the budget.

The government might want to start doing some soul searching, because the election is fast approaching; it is 158 days away. The day after the election, when they find themselves on this side of the House, perhaps the Conservatives will understand the completely disastrous consequences of their actions, their behaviour and their attitude over the past several years, especially the past four years, toward democracy, the parliamentary system and the traditions that have made this House a place to work for the common good and all Canadians.

The Conservatives refuse to hear this message. We will put it into practice after October 2015.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments the member made, especially when he focused on the fact that the role and responsibility of the opposition is not just to criticize but to generate ideas, alternatives, and so forth.

I believe that a good comparison is the manner in which the government made the determination to move forward with income splitting. It means that less than 14% of Canada's population, primarily the wealthiest, would receive $2 billion annually. That is a significant amount. We in the Liberal Party are opposing that and have provided a tangible alternative. We have said that a Liberal government would make the tax system fair and would cut the middle-class tax rate by 7%. It is a tangible difference and is a much fairer policy.

Can the member provide his thoughts on the 7% tax break the Liberals are proposing for the middle class? What is his party's position on that issue?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the official opposition and the third party agree that income splitting is not a good measure. We also oppose the increase in the contribution limit for TFSAs. Our positions are consistent, and we oppose what the government is proposing.

I looked at the measure the member for Winnipeg North mentioned and found a number of glaring weaknesses.

The first weakness has to do with the 7% tax cut. In fact, it is not really a cut, because it leads to the same problem that plagued former premier Jim Prentice. When he talked about the Alberta NDP's proposal to raise corporate taxes by 20%, he gave the impression that the NDP wanted to raise taxes by 20 percentage points, but that was not the case. Ms. Notley, the new premier, emphasized that she was simply raising taxes from 10% to 12%, which is an increase of only 2%.

In this case, it is not really a 7% tax cut, but rather a decrease from 22% to 20.5%, or a real cut of 1.5%.

However, this measure would not benefit two-thirds of taxpayers, since it would apply only to those who earn over $44,800. Those who earn less than that, which is two-thirds of Canadians, will not benefit at all from that tax cut.

The Liberals should not be making it sound as though this measure would benefit only people earning between $44,700 and $89,000. It would benefit everyone who has an income between $45,000 and $215,000.

At the end of the day, the measure proposed by the Liberal Party would take a little money, by increasing taxes for the top 1% of earners, and redistribute it among the top 15%—or thereabouts—of earners.

I think that the Liberals' proposal shows a real lack of consideration for the public and the middle class, whose average yearly individual income is under $44,000.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, as the member would well know, it is our Conservative government that has restored fiscal balance. We have done this through long-term transfers to the provinces. They are historic transfers. This year it was nearly $68 billion. There has been a 62% increase since the Liberals were in government. That is an increase of more than $3 billion and almost 63% since the Liberals. Federal support for health, education, and social services has increased some 59% since we formed government.

I know that the member is a member of Parliament from a great riding in Quebec. There is a very important contribution to the province of Quebec. The federal government has increased transfers to the province of Quebec.

We believe in collaborative government, where we work with our provinces. I wonder if the member can now stand in his place and speak to the advantages these additional transfers to the province of Quebec have brought to the province and to his riding. Would he indeed reconsider his position and the rhetoric we have been hearing in the House on this budget and actually stand up and support his constituents in his riding by supporting this budget?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, standing up for my constituents is exactly what I am doing in speaking out against this bill.

I find it curious that the parliamentary secretary is talking about a government that works with the provinces.

When he talks about a 59% increase over 10 years, I thank the miracle of compound interest. In fact, if the member crunches the numbers, 59% over a period of 10 years is not all that much.

Why was I smiling about his comment on this government's collaboration with the provinces? Let us take a look at health transfers. There is no collaboration. Ottawa and the provinces had a health agreement, but the government did not renew it. It even refused to sit down with the provinces to renegotiate these transfers. Negotiation involves discussions and collaboration. The government unilaterally imposed a reduction in the growth of health transfers. These are important, especially since health care spending is growing at a higher rate than inflation. Cutting growth from 6% to 3% means that the provinces will see their transfers reduced to half what they were under the agreement that had been signed and negotiated. We are talking about a $36 billion cut in the coming years. Quebec is losing out, as are all of the provinces.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to reconsider his support for this budget bill and the government's policies.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech and his very hard work as a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. It must be so hard sometimes, knowing how the Conservative government operates. I can talk more about that later during my own speech.

I would like my colleague to comment further about something. He talked about measures in the budget that the NDP supports, such as the tax cut for small and medium-sized businesses in Canada. We support that measure because it was our idea. The Conservatives took a long time to act on it. All the same, I would like my colleague to explain how the NDP would have implemented that tax rate. I know that the Conservatives are making our small and medium-sized businesses wait for the tax cut. I would like my colleague to talk about how the NDP would start trying to help Canada's entrepreneurs right away.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for that question because it is relevant.

Both the Conservatives and the Liberals rejected our proposal to cut taxes for small businesses. The initiative in the current budget implementation bill does not go as far as the NDP's proposal. When we moved our motion, which was debated for a day in the House, we wanted an immediate reduction from 11% to 10%, and then to 9% when finances allowed, such as in a budget surplus situation.

What the government has put on the table is a plan to gradually reduce small business taxes over a period of time that is twice as long as what was proposed in the NDP motion. I feel that the government has shown bad faith. For one thing, it voted against the principle of cutting taxes for small businesses. For another, it is taking much longer to implement the tax cut than an NDP government would have done.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the member for Burlington, if I that is agreeable.

Mr. Speaker, there is one initiative that stands above all others in this budget bill, because it would allow millions of Canadians, from all backgrounds and walks of life, to work hard and plan ahead to become more self-reliant, and even wealthy, over time. This is the bright future Conservatives want for all Canadians, especially our children and grandchildren. Ordinary people would have the independence that is available only to wealthy people now. That initiative is the tax-free savings account limit being increased to $10,000 a year.

Tax-free savings accounts are the most powerful savings vehicle in Canadian history. They will allow hundreds of thousands of ordinary working people to actually become millionaires.

Here are 10 reasons the Conservative government, in this bill, has the only plan for Canadians to conserve their earnings, build personal wealth, and be financially independent in their senior years: tax-free savings accounts.

Number one, they help our youth understand the importance of saving. What is the most important gift for financial success and security we could give our children and grandchildren? It is teaching them to be self-reliant and to work and save for their future using the power of compound interest. It is teaching them to not spend what they do not have, to not get buried in charge card debt and interest, to pay their bills on time, and to save for life's priorities, like education, a home, and their retirement.

The ratio of debt to net income is 1.6 for the average family in Canada right now. It is the highest ever. However, it gets worse. What happens when the interest rates go up, as they will? Hundreds of thousands of families will be trapped in monthly credit card payments at an 18% interest rate, or higher, that they will struggle to pay down.

By promoting saving as part of our culture, instead of credit card debt, we can help spare millions of young people from this interest rate trap that never ends.

Eleven million Canadians have opened their own tax-free savings accounts so far and agree with us. Every Canadian over 18 should try to save in a tax-free savings account. They should not be misled by the subterfuge of the Liberals, who are telling Canadians that tax-free savings accounts only help the rich. That is absolutely not true. It is never okay to mislead Canadians like this. It is shameful.

Here is the truth about tax-free savings accounts. Sixty per cent of those Canadians who have invested the maximum in tax-free savings accounts to date earn less than $60,000 a year. By whose standards are these people rich? No one's.

More than half of the Canadians who have opened tax-free savings accounts and have saved in them earn $40,000 a year or less. That is 5.5 million people. Are they rich? Certainly not.

The Liberals are setting us all up by saying that they will only increase taxes for the rich. What do they mean by that? Who is that? It is everyone who earns over $40,000, which is the vast majority of Canadians. They want to get their hands on that $6,600 our government has cut from the average Canadian family's tax bill.

The federal Liberal leader has already announced, on May 4, the Liberal plan to cancel our increase for tax-free savings accounts to $10,000 a year. That is a tax increase of the most foolish kind.

Number two, tax-free savings accounts are the great equalizer. Canadians who do not earn over $100,000 a year have only one way to become financially independent: save, invest, and watch their money grow. That is what tax-free savings accounts facilitate.

With tax-free savings accounts, ordinary Canadians who work and save can become wealthy. For example, a skilled tradeswoman electrician who took full advantage of her tax-free savings account limit from age 20, with a modest 4% return on stocks, could receive her first million dollars tax free by age 61. That is 13 years sooner than it would be without a tax-free savings account.

Tax-free savings accounts also grow our economy. When people open tax-free savings accounts with Canadian securities, their money goes to invest in Canadian enterprises that create jobs here in Canada. Businesses expand. Economic activity is boosted. That growth, over decades, could easily replace any lost government tax revenues from tax-free savings accounts.

Here is the problem. The Liberals and the NDP believe, and they want all Canadians to believe, that money not in government hands is not benefiting Canada. This is a Marxist hangover. It is nonsense.

Here is the truth. Money invested by Canadians is money that is loaned out to industry and job creators to help build Canada. Entrepreneurs are our most important creators.

This is reason number four: they support innovation and job creation. With tax-free savings accounts, entrepreneurs can tap into their accumulated tax-free savings to create new industry and replenish their accounts later as their businesses grow.

The fifth reason is that tax-free savings accounts are fair because the government should not tax all people's money twice. It saddens me to see our seniors, the people who built Canada, trying to live on interest on their savings that gets eaten up by inflation and then taxed. They are just falling further behind. With tax-free savings accounts, the federal government is forgoing the double taxation that prevents Canadians from growing their most important lifetime savings, leaving them one little pile of their own money to grow without interference. Canadians deserve that.

The sixth reason is that tax-free savings accounts shine a light on how ordinary Canadians have been robbed of their right to affluence and self-reliance. Big-spending governments, like both opposition parties would create, are addicted to spending and borrowing. Just look at Ontario right now. The Liberals and New Democrats believe that all money belongs to the government and Canadians just get to use it for awhile and governments can tax it back any time they want, any way they want, whenever they want. The Conservatives believe that money earned after tax belongs to the people who earn it. They should have at least one special account that the government has no right to touch, or even its growth, ever again.

The seventh reason is that tax-free savings accounts help ensure better health care for Canadians. Canadians who want to be able to afford choice in their own health care in their senior years should be saving as much as they need in tax-free savings accounts. The most hysterical socialists at the Broadbent Institute are playing the fear card, claiming that health care is threatened if the doubling of tax-free savings accounts is approved. They have no shame. The exact opposite is the truth.

The fact is that governments only cover 60% of our total health care costs. Canadians pay the rest, if they can afford to, such as dental care, chiropractic care, naturopathic care, homeopathic care, long-term care, blood tests, vitamins. We pay more for drugs than we do for doctors. We pay for long-term care. Let us face it, the nanny state is a failure.

People can save in the TFSA and be self-reliant so they are not left without the money they need to pay for these things. By saving $7,000 a year from age 25, at a modest 5% rate of growth, a 65 year old would have $887,000 to handle any such bills. No government could ever do that for them. If that same person saved $10,000 a year and got a 5% rate of return, he or she would have over $1.2 million. This drives the socialists crazy. They cannot stand that ordinary people could be that independent. Who would need the nanny state? That is why the socialists hate TFSAs and would get rid of them if elected.

The eighth reason is that TFSAs reduce the underground economy. TFSAs are registered savings plans. The government knows about them. They will help bring our considerable underground economy above ground by making it more attractive to invest in Canadian companies because the growth is tax free. The government will get more tax income from the companies that grow out of the investments and from their employees.

The ninth reason is that tax-free savings accounts support the flexibility of future governments to act. The Broadbent Institute claims that by 2080 the government will be short $15 billion that it otherwise would have had. That completely ignores the fact that some of those billions of dollars would have remained in the underground economy. It also ignores the multiplier effect of those dollars invested back in the economy and the fact that our economy, by that time, would be as large as $15 trillion. Therefore, $15 billion would be about .001% of such an economy. This is simple math. If governments are ever low on money, they can always raise taxes, reduce spending or borrow if need be. Tax-free savings accounts do not hinder any of that.

The tenth reason is that tax-free savings accounts at $10,000 a year are the absolute best deal Canadian taxpayers have ever been offered. They will motivate Canadians to work, to be entrepreneurs and employ others, to save and to be self-reliant. We can build a much greater nation with millions of citizens like that, and that is what we would do with this budget bill.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to give my colleague a basic lesson on the difference between a non-taxable amount and a taxable amount.

My colleague talked about the new universal child care benefit, which will benefit all parents. However, that benefit is taxable at the end of the year when families have to do their tax returns.

In other words, a family that receives about $750 from the government will be taxed—this is taxable income, after all—and will have just a little under $200 left at the end of the year.

Why do my colleague and the Conservative government want to tax families?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has it all wrong. Our party is about lowering taxes on families. That is what we have been doing since we became the government in 2006. In fact, the amount we have lowered taxes for the average Canadian family since 2006 is $6,600 every year. With this budget, we now have lowered taxes in 180 different ways. That is what we are all about and I think the taxpayers know that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is the one who has it all wrong. The government's taxation policy does favour Canada's wealthy. Using his example of the tax-free savings account, let me give him a dose of reality.

A good majority of the constituents who I represent will make individually somewhere between $20,000 to $40,000 a year. Out of that, maybe 5% will have contributed the maximum last year to their tax-free savings accounts. Compare that to those who make over $200,000 a year. There it would be close to 35% who maximize it, and the government has chosen to double that benefit. That tells me the people who benefit the most are the wealthiest in Canada.

That is why I say the taxation policy favours Canada's wealthy. It is not fair taxation policy. Could the member explain how that discrepancy is fair?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member was listening to my speech. The point is that the only way that people who never have an income over $50,000 in their whole working life can ever become independent and have the freedom that wealthy people have is if they are able to save in a tax-free savings account. The growth within that account is never taxed. It is extremely powerful savings plan to help people have that independence later in life. That is the point of tax-free savings accounts.

There will always be people who earn more money than others. However, why are the Liberals trying to create a class war in Canada? Why are the Liberals picking on our doctors, lawyers, union leaders and other business people and even people in the arts? Why are they targeting them and trying to create a class war? I think it is because the Liberals just cannot stand that highly accomplished people earn more than others and they do not make a very large voting base, so too bad for them.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to some of the questions I just heard and give the member an opportunity to talk about those. Of those who have maxed out their TFSAs, 60% earned less than $60,000, which is contrary to what the member opposite just said. There are 856,000 Canadians age 65 and over who have maxed out their contributions. Another 1.3 million age 55 and older have done the same. Therefore, it is a tool being used by those who are in the lower and middle incomes. Could the member comment on the actual facts?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, those are the undeniable facts. People understand the power of savings with compounded interest in a tax-free savings account. However, if people ever want to know what a potential Liberal budget would look like federally, all they have to do is look at the province of Ontario right now. Ontario Liberals just announced two major tax grabs, the pension tax, which would take about $2 billion out of the pockets of people and employers, and the carbon tax, which would be another $1.5 billion. Then they are going to sell off portions of Ontario Hydro to try to raise another $4.5 billion. Imagine that on a national scale and imagine—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. We only had a limited amount of time on that last round.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Burlington.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the riding of Oakville for sharing his time with me today. I am very honoured to stand to speak to Bill C-59.

I have made an attempt to speak to all of the budget bills that have come before us, whether at the time the policy is introduced or during the implementation bills. There are normally two. One is in the spring, after the budget has been presented in the House, to implement what is in the budget, and other measures. There is also, normally, an implementation bill in the fall, which I know will not happen this year because we will be out on the hustings, asking people to support us.

It is my pleasure to be here, particularly this year. Over the last number of years, I have been advocating with our finance minister and finance officials for changes to the RRIFs in terms of the minimum withdrawal. I did not come up with that on my own. I want to thank the over 40 individuals who came to my office over the last year or so to talk about the issue of the level of required withdrawals they had to make from their RRIFs. This is not an organized lobby. They are individuals and their families affected by the existing rules.

I also want to thank the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, who heard the same thing. We were very active with our colleagues on this side of the House on this issue, encouraging them to speak to the finance minister and financial officials about the possibility of looking at the withdrawal rate on RRIFs.

I was very excited to see that in this budget we have actually moved on it. Under the current system, the minimum withdrawal is 7.38%, and that will go down to 5.28%. Why is that important? Why did those 40 people come to see me, and what does it mean to them?

We have a couple of programs for retirement savings. We have the RRSP and RPP to encourage individuals to save for their retirement. Part of that encouragement is to give them tax relief for the amount of money they put away for their retirement.

A few years ago, the program required people to move that money from an RRSP, or the other savings program, into a registered retirement income fund. I believe the age for that was 68 or 69, but we moved it to 71, knowing that people had some more time and did not need the money that early. The fact is that people are living much longer than when this program was introduced decades ago. People need their retirement money to last longer. They need to be able to stretch it out to meet the needs they will have if they make into their 90s. Many of my constituents are making it into their 90s.

In my riding alone, the senior cohort is not only growing, it is actually the majority. That is over 55; it is not everyone over 71, However, that cohort is growing and moving forward and we need to be there now, making the changes now, so they can take advantage of it.

There is an excellent chart in the budget, which I would like to read into the record. Regarding the changes that we would make to RRIFs, or registered retirement income funds, let us look at the difference that it would make to an individual. Let us make the assumption, as the budget does, that it is $100,000. An 2% inflation rate is built into that, and the return on investment in their income fund is at 5%. Some will do better, some will do a little worse, but this is our chart.

At age 71, one would have $100,000. At age 80, under the existing rules, one would have $64,000 left, but under the new rules of this budget implementation legislation, it would be $77,000, a difference of 20%. This is a significant difference that those individuals could hold on to for the retirement funds that they need for basic living. Under the current rules, at age 85, it would be $47,000, which would go to $62,000. Many of my constituents are living into their nineties these days. At age 90, under the current rules, it would be $30,000. Under the new rules, it would be $44,000, and so on and so forth. It caps at $20,000 at 94 years of age.

This is important because people are getting older in all ridings in the country, not just mine. We expect individuals to save for their retirement. The other option is to look to governments to support everything, but it cannot afford it. The government will not have the tax base to support the growing bubble of retirees who are coming with the baby boom. We have tools for saving, whether that be the tax-free savings account, as previously mentioned, or the registered retirement savings plan, which encourage people to save for their retirement so they will have less reliance on government to support them.

However, what was happening in my riding, because of the minimum, at 7.38%; because of good planning, good strategy and my constituents working hard, understanding their future and saving money; they were being required to take money out, reducing the cash flow that they would need in the years to come.

In the past, we would think that someone 71 years old would have another decade and a half left here. However, people are living longer. Last year I lost a grandmother at 97 years old. I have a grandmother still with me who is 97 years old. I have had two grandfathers aged 89. I have known four great-grandparents. People are living longer, but I will let members know that it does not mean that I will be in this seat for another 40 years.

[Some hon. members]

That is not true.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that members hoped I would get re-elected for another 40 years, but I do not think that is going to happen.

I appreciate the fact that this government, through this budget bill, has recognized the importance of retirement savings and that it is our constituents' money. They have not paid taxes on it, because they use the system we put in place as a government to encourage people to save for their future. However, we now have recognized that they will need that money for a longer period of time.

Let us be honest, the government of the day will get its taxes. The plan for RRSPs is that when earnings are higher, money is put away and one would receive a reduction on taxes at that time, but when one takes that money out, one would pay taxes on it then. We would expect to be earning less when we take the money out and therefore the tax rate should be slightly less. However, what was happening in Burlington, and I believe across the country as we heard from the MP from West Vancouver, because the marketplace was not performing as well in terms of the stock market, people were taking their money out of RRIFs and actually losing money. they were unable to get the return on that money that they could have if they had left it there. They lost money in their income funds, and then we were forcing them to take that money out, which became a double-edged sword. We have recognized that and have made some significant changes to the registered retirement income fund, which is great for savings for seniors across this country.

Therefore, I am very proud to be supporting Bill C-59 and we look forward to having the bill passed and in place for this fiscal year.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask my colleague a question after his speech on the Conservatives' new-found passion for balanced budgets in 2015.

In Bill C-59, they have introduced a balanced budget act to require the government to balance the budget under certain circumstances.

Is my colleague prepared to make this measure retroactive, so that it applies to the Conservatives' last seven deficit budgets? Five of them would not have been accepted, according to the circumstances outlined in the budget implementation bill that allow a government to incur a deficit.

Would my colleague be prepared to make this proposal retroactive, so that cabinet ministers would have to pay out of their own pockets for all the Conservatives' deficit budgets that did not comply with the bill they are introducing today?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the implementation bill there is a part implementing the balanced budget act. It states that if a country, or the world in our case, is facing a recession or a depression and the economics of the day require governments around the world, including Canada, to spend more than they are taking in, to have a deficit to stimulate the economy in order to create jobs and make sure that Canadians have the wealth they need to continue, the bill actually provides an exception for that to happen.

The finance minister of the day would come forward to the finance committee and discuss the issues of the day. That is included in the bill.

I stand behind it today. I stood behind it three years ago. Balanced books is the way governments, businesses and households should operate.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's last response on balanced budget legislation. He is quite right. As it is defined in the legislation, balanced budget legislation would only apply during times outside of recession.

Given the fact that we have not been in a recession, statistically, since the spring of 2009, would the government accept an amendment to the legislation to make it apply retroactively? As such, the cabinet and the Prime Minister would, of course, have their pay docked every year since 2009. During that period of time we have been outside of a recessionary period and the government has actually added $160 billion to the national debt. Would he accept the spirit of the legislation and support an amendment to make it retroactive?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we look back at the deficit reduction plans of all the parties in the House over the last number of years, which I have done relatively recently, the only party that had an actual deficit reduction plan was the Conservative Party. The Liberals want to spend more money. The NDP members always want to spend more money. New Democrats believe it grows on trees and somehow it grow back. It is like “the books balance themselves”, I guess.

[An hon. member]

That was the Liberal leader.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was what the Liberal leader said.

The fact is, we did have a recession. We did have a deficit and we had a plan to pay it back and we met our obligations. We have balanced the books. We have balanced the budget in this fiscal year. We promised that.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, and it really is a first, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. This is not the first time I have shared my time, but it is the first time I have remembered to mention it. I therefore have the honour of sharing my time with this excellent member.

I quite liked the speech by the hon. member who spoke before me. He is also the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I felt like telling him that it is not that we always want to spend more money. We want to spend Canadians' money on Canadians, whereas the Conservatives do not mind if that money is spent on a corporation.

It is all a question of nuance, and that is the big problem with Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures.

In the House, we are facing a time allocation motion—the 96th—which prevents members from across the country from speaking to such an important issue as the budget implementation bill. This bill is over 180 pages long and affects many laws. I especially want to talk in the House about other measures contained in controversial Bill C-59.

Since I do not believe that we will have the time to debate the bill at length, I will talk about three divisions that are of particular interest to me. I am referring to division 10, which concerns the parliamentary protective service, division 18 on the abolition of the long gun registry, and division 20, which deals with sick leave and disability programs. I will start with the last one I mentioned, namely, the division on sick leave and disability programs.

Since this bill was introduced, and even before that—the budget gave us a taste of what was to come—we have had the clear and distinct impression that the Government of Canada was set on what it was going to do, even though, over the years, it had made a commitment to its employees across the country who serve Canadians. I am a labour lawyer. We know how negotiations work. You give and you take. That is what negotiating is. In the end, you come to an agreement. Each party compromises in order to reach an agreement or a collective agreement. That is what happened in negotiations in previous years.

Now, with the stroke of a pen, the Conservatives have decided to take back what they had given to people, who for their part had also given up something in return. Thus, the government won concessions on some things over the years by giving these much talked-about sick benefits and a certain disability plan, that it is now taking back. That is not very democratic.

In my humble opinion, this could definitely be challenged in court and it is certainly not a way to treat those who are working here among the lawmakers in Parliament and delivering services to all Canadians. Make no mistake: this is a blatant lack of respect. When I hear the minister and the President of the Treasury Board saying that over 200 negotiation meetings have already been held, I think to myself that the Conservatives are very good at throwing all sorts of figures around, whenever and however they want, because they lump in pretty much anything and everything. They certainly did not hold intelligent and productive negotiations in good faith on this issue.

What is worse, this is like me saying to someone that I am going to negotiate with him, but then I just go ahead and do whatever I want, even if he does not in any way support my decision. That basically means that there will be no negotiation. That is what this provision of division 20 of Bill C-59 boils down to.

I can say that the NDP is strongly opposed to that way of doing things. If the Conservative government believes that the government negotiators were not able to negotiate the right things over the years, then it needs to do something about that. That is the government's decision. However, it should not take away from people the things that belong to them, and it should not be spreading false information. For example, it should not be saying that all federal government employees abuse the system and their sick leave. I think that is insulting to dedicated employees who work tirelessly to serve the public.

If the government wants to defend an argument, there are many ways of doing so other than spouting such nonsense. The employees who work for us should at least have our respect. This is certainly not a very respectful way of doing things. To all those who have written me to ask what our position is, I can tell them that the NDP's position is clear: the NDP does not support the government's position on this at all. We are going to vote against this measure and we are certainly going to clean up the mess. Heaven knows that there will be plenty of cleanup to do after the October 19 election.

I will now move on to the issue with division 18, which I find most worrisome. When we were debating the time allocation motion, the Minister of Finance answered a question regarding the division on ending the long gun registry. His response concerned me. Let us not kid ourselves. All of the members will hear about the letter from the Privacy Commissioner, Ms. Legault, who wrote to the Speaker of the House. She informed him of some facts that I find extremely worrisome. In short, she said that illegal acts were allegedly committed and documents were apparently destroyed, even though they should not have been destroyed and their destruction was not legal in any way. She even informed the Attorney General of Canada that the RCMP had committed this offence. Our RCMP. I get worried when these allegations come from an officer of Parliament as important as the Privacy Commissioner. Once again, we see a pattern. Just a few sentences in a budget implementation bill and the RCMP is absolved of everything it did illegally without legal authorization. That is absolutely despicable. This government claims to be a law and order government, but only when it sees fit. That is extremely worrisome.

The Minister of Finance gave a big, beautiful, super-intelligent response, saying that this was a promise the government had made in the 2011 election campaign. I listened carefully, because even though I do not necessarily share the government's views on the long gun registry, I can still admit that the Conservatives did promise to put an end to the long gun registry. I congratulate them for following through on their promise. I do not agree, but they did make that promise. However, in their election campaign they never talked about destroying data, nor did they talk about absolving those who may have been involved in the obstruction of justice or committed other offences. They certainly never talked about that.

I invite my colleagues, who have to deal with this issue with very little time, to pay particular attention to that. That is the problem with the government's approach, when it goes ahead with an omnibus bill that changes everything under the sun, even things that do not necessarily have anything to do with its main objective. I do not have high hopes in that regard.

As a final point, I would like to say a few words about division 10, which has to do with the parliamentary protective service. I encourage my colleagues to read that section. It reiterates the importance of our role as parliamentarians and outlines how that protection will be carried out. The RCMP is going to take over this task, under the authority of the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. The bill reiterates the principle that the work of parliamentarians must never be obstructed. Once again, I feel as though I am reading one thing, but living another.

My colleague from Toronto—Danforth argued this point in the question of privilege he raised, which was recognized by the Chair but reversed by the government. I heard my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques say that it was perhaps the last time we would have a chance to speak in the House on a budget bill. The Conservatives managed to balance the budget on the backs of just about everyone. This government has been the most undemocratic government I have seen in my life, throughout all the years that I spent following politics, as both a politician and a regular citizen.

I hope I got everyone's attention so that they will go read these three divisions. Public servants need not worry. The NDP understands them, appreciates their work, and will be there to repair the damage.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments and impassioned speech on this matter.

I would like to ask her a question about one of the provisions in the bill. It deals with the protection of intellectual property in Canada.

The protection of intellectual property is a very important part of building a knowledge-based economy, because it allows knowledge creators in Canada to protect that and put it into the marketplace in a meaningful way.

One of the sections in this bill would give patent agents privilege, which is something the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents of the World Intellectual Property Organization talked about with regard to Canada, saying in essence that in order for Canada to have a stronger intellectual property protection regime, this particular privilege should be enacted.

Could the member comment on whether this is something the NDP would support? I know the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada supports it as well, and I think it is a great thing. I hope the member supports it.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that my colleague asked me that question because it proves my point.

Without necessarily getting into the wording of the title of the bill, which, again, is “An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget and other measures”, this is a typical example of something that falls under “other measures”.

Whether we are talking about security here or the issues I mentioned in the divisions I deemed important, such as abolishing the long gun registry and the amnesty given to actions that can be perceived as crime or obstruction, these aspects should be part of a separate bill so that the right committee can study all the pertinent repercussions.

As far as the issue of copyright and registration is concerned, my colleague and Canadian Heritage critic often talks to me rather passionately about how all these rights can be reconciled. It is not easy. If we make the companies happy, then the creators are not necessarily happy.

Did this not merit a respectful amount of time for consideration, either at the Standing Committee on Finance or at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, where this issue will likely end up and where we will not even have the right to make amendments? That is the problem with Bill C-59.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about a real concern we have been expressing.

The member for Cape Breton—Canso, the Liberal Party's labour critic, has raised the issue of the lack of goodwill on the part of the government to negotiate in good faith with Canada's public service union.

It seems the Conservatives just do not have respect for professionalism in our public service. We have witnessed it even beyond the immediate public service in some of the crown corporations, whether it is a lack of confidence in CBC or some of the dramatic decisions that have taken place in Canada Post with regard to letter carriers and door-to-door delivery.

I wonder if the member could expand on her thoughts in regard to the general lack of goodwill the Government of Canada has toward our public servants, whether they are with crown corporations or directly with the government, and the negative impact that has in terms of service overall. We could include service centres that have been closed down over the last number of years.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, to this day I am always blown away by the quality of the work done by our public service. With resources that began to be cut back in the 1990s and continued dwindling in the 2000s and now in the 2010s, it performs miracles with very little.

When we speak to public servants, we see how burned out they are. While they might need some leave to recover from this profound exhaustion, the government is attacking something that is very important to them, and we have ended up where we are now.

I am not surprised that the Conservative government did what it did. Just listen to how the President of the Treasury Board talks about the public service, the people who work in the service of Canadians. The language he uses is so disrespectful that one would think he sees them all as people who abuse the system.

Anyone who sits down with public servants will see that they are professional people who care about the services they are mandated to deliver to the public. There is a general lack of respect, and that needs to change.

I would simply point out to the member for Winnipeg North that the strikes that took place in the 1990s and earlier did not happen under a Conservative government, but rather under the Liberals—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

The latest budget implementation bill is, not surprisingly, another omnibus bill. This one is 150 pages long and amends dozens of acts, most of which have nothing to do with the budget. Unfortunately, that should come as no surprise. The Conservatives have gotten into this habit and have tried to make it the norm for Parliament. They have gotten us used to disdain—even outright disgust—for the basic principles of parliamentary democracy. Frankly, this is one of the biggest disappointments of my first mandate.

Since being elected as a majority government, the Conservatives have done everything in their power to sidestep their transparency and accountability obligations. They are the government, but they seem to have forgotten that the MPs, including Conservative backbenchers and opposition MPs, are responsible for overseeing and studying bills. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have repeatedly used omnibus bills as a tactic to avoid the oversight that is meant to be carried out by all of the other parliamentarians in the House as well as all Canadians.

With this clearly undemocratic process, the Conservatives are trying to rush through hundreds of legislative amendments that have nothing to do with the budget, without any study. In the case of the most recent budget, which was tabled on April 21, 2015, on one of the rare work days of our current Minister of Finance, the Conservatives saw an opportunity to launch their election campaign. For the Conservatives, it was not an opportunity to help people who really need help and middle-class Canadian families. It was an opportunity to give presents to their wealthy friends instead of helping those most in need.

Despite the warnings of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, many opposition MPs and various experts, the Conservatives are moving forward with their ill-advised income splitting regime, which will obviously help just 15% of the richest Canadian families and not those who really need help. The income splitting together with the increase in the TFSA contribution limit, which will rise to $10,000, will mean a decrease of billions of dollars in the public coffers in future years.

That money could be used to implement social programs to help families; people living in poverty; single mothers, who the Conservatives claim to want to help; more traditional couples; and so on. However, the government prefers to work on getting re-elected. According to this government, it is not the problem of today's elected officials. Rather, it is the problem of the Prime Minister's granddaughter and future generations. Quite frankly, that is one of the worst things I have heard in the House or anywhere else.

In any case, that is what the current Minister of Finance and this Conservative government think. They are washing their hands of it and will leave it up to our children, grandchildren and future generations to fix all the problems they are creating now. Frankly, that is an irresponsible attitude that I do not understand, especially from people who boast about being extraordinarily strong fiscal managers. Time and time again we have seen that this is not the case.

The Conservatives would have us believe that this is their reputation, but Canadians can see right through it. They know very well that this is not the case. In fact, more and more recent studies name provincial New Democrat governments as the best managers of public funds. In 2015 we will have the opportunity to show Canadians that we will also be the best federal managers of public funds.

To get back to the budget that was just tabled, even the measures that appear to be universal will have very few positive effects on Canadian families. The universal child care benefit is the best example of that. The Conservatives announced a $60 increase with much fanfare. Canadian families will now receive $160 to help them with child care costs. At first glance that may seem like a lot, but with the Conservatives, the devil is in the details and you have to dig a little deeper.

The first thing the Conservatives refuse to tell Canadian families is that this universal child care benefit will be considered taxable income. It is therefore another tax that the Conservative government is imposing on Canadians, regardless of their income.

That tax will be imposed on families regardless of their income. The advice that financial experts are giving Canadian families is to not spend that money on child care but to keep at least half of it to cover any unpleasant surprises they may get when they file their income tax return next year. How does the government think it is really going to help families when they have to put some of the money it gives them aside to cover the cost of this new tax? Frankly, that is ridiculous.

The Conservatives do not seem to understand that $160 per month does not even come close to covering child care costs across the country. I would like to quote a few statistics from 2012 that I obtained from the Childcare Resource and Research Unit. Unfortunately, things have not improved since then. In Nova Scotia, parents who manage to find a day care space for their child—because not all of them can—pay an average of $825 a month. In British Columbia, parents pay an average of $1,047 a month, and in Ontario they pay $1,152 a month. In Toronto, more specifically, child care costs can be up to $1,676 a month. I do not know who the Conservatives think they are going to help with $160 a month. That amount is absolutely ridiculous when we look at the actual financial constraints faced by families who simply want to earn a living and make sure that their children are receiving the best care possible. I really do not know where the government's head is at, offering families such a ridiculously low amount, especially given that they have to save part of it to pay their taxes the following year.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

In the sand.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, as my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île pointed out, the Conservatives probably have their heads in the sand.

I would like to talk about another deplorable effect that the budget will have. Actually, in this case it is more of a failure to have an effect. Increasing the universal child care benefit will not create new day care spaces. For parents who have already been lucky enough to secure a spot for their child in a day care centre or in private child care, that is not a problem. They may get a minimal amount of assistance. However, the Conservatives' plan does not address the difficult situation of all the other parents who have nowhere to take their child when they go to work. The NDP has proposed a plan that the Conservatives continue to ignore, for some unknown reason. Contrary to the Conservative propaganda, the NDP does not want to eliminate this benefit. We obviously want parents to have access to what little money they can get. In addition, the NDP has a plan to create $15-a-day child care spaces. Thus, we are offering real choice to parents. In addition to receiving the universal child care benefit, they will have access to affordable day care.

This program already exists in Quebec. The NDP program could bolster the existing program with federal moneys. The results of this program have been extraordinary. I will quote Ann Decter, the spokesperson for the YWCA:

Between 1996, when low-cost child care was introduced in Quebec, and 2008, a total of 69,700 additional mothers joined the workforce;...the number of single mothers on social assistance was reduced by more than half...; relative poverty rates for single parent families headed by women declined from 36% to 22%...; and the GDP rose $5.1 billion...

These are real, tangible effects that will benefit everyone in Canada, not just families. That is the kind of measure we want to see in the budget. We are nonetheless pleased that the Conservatives have finally seen the light after many years and have decided to establish a tax credit for small and medium-sized businesses. That is an NDP idea. They have finally seen the light. We also support the tax credit for home renovation, another of our wishes, along with the measures to assist veterans included in the budget implementation bill. I do not understand why they are there; it is a subject that deserves a proper debate in the House, but we do support these measures, no matter what.

However, because the Conservatives have decided to play political games and include these measures in an omnibus bill, we cannot support it. We must oppose it. It is clearly undemocratic and it does not help the vast majority of Canadian families.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest. I wondered where the hon. member was taking us. She quoted the minister, which is not the quote at all. On page 12 of the document it says:

Reducing Canada’s debt burden is also a question of intergenerational fairness—it would simply not be fair to saddle our children and grandchildren with inevitable tax hikes to pay for the expenses we could not settle ourselves.

There is a decided difference between saying this was what was said when in fact what is said is in print on page 12 of the book. I think it is noteworthy that we want to correct the record; the minister did not say it would be the fault of the children. He said it would be unfair. In other words, we should not do it. That is where we sit.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite must not watch the same news channels as most Canadians and he must not read the same newspapers, because everyone saw and heard the Minister of Finance use those words to answer a question about the impact of raising the TFSA contribution limit to $10,000. I am not sure where he was at that moment. The question has been asked in the House several times. Everyone in Canada is aware of it.

Perhaps the hon. member is confused because I presented a lot of facts based on science, and I know that is not the strong suit of those on the other side. It is difficult to follow but he should go and watch all the videos available on the tabling of the budget, because the Minister of Finance really did say those words and they were criticized all across the country.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, spinning off the last question to a certain extent about saddling future generations, there are two ways that we can saddle future generations, either with debt or with the lack of ability of governments to provide the programs to citizens for which citizens are asking.

Although the government likes to claim it is a good fiscal manager, we do know this is really the first budget, and it is kind of a fiction figure in terms of balancing the budget because the Conservatives have sold off a lot of property around the world. They have basically used the employment insurance fund to balance the books, and the list goes on.

My question for the member is this. The way the government manages its fiscal affairs, does she see that as leaving future generations the ability to have the kind of programming they need, or is that just a misnomer on the part of the government?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

It is one of the rare moments in the House when the NDP and the Liberals agree on the fact that no one should let themselves be taken in by the idea that the Conservatives are good managers of public funds. People have repeatedly seen the evidence that it is not true. No one believes that government propaganda any more.

Unfortunately, but clearly, as I said in my speech, both the Parliamentary Budget Officer and a number of financial experts have decried the Conservative government's poor decisions, including income splitting and raising the TFSA limit to $10,000. Billions of dollars are going to be kept out of the public treasury just to help this Conservative government get re-elected and to help their wealthy friends keep more money in their pockets.

We in the NDP have a different vision. We want to ensure equality of opportunity so that people who live in poor conditions can still have access to services and help from the government so they too can take their place in our society. That is true for today and for future generations. Unfortunately the Conservative government does not share our vision.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be here today to speak to the 2015 budget. I have been a member of Parliament now for 22 years, and I have spoken to a lot of budgets, first from the point of view of the opposition and for the past nine years from the government side. I want to say that I really prefer the budgets from the government side. I have enjoyed speaking to them and pointing out to Canadians the benefits and changes that have been presented not only in the 2015 budget but in a series of budgets leading to a long-term plan to help make our country better.

Canada, as we all know, is a marvellous country. It is truly the best country in the world in which to live, but when we were elected as the government almost 10 years ago, there was a need for a change in direction. I would argue that the country had been going the wrong way for a number of years, with increased taxation, more interference in business, more red tape, and less freedom all around.

I am proud to be a member of Parliament in this Conservative political party, which has done a lot over these 10 years to make Canada a much better place.

I am here today to speak to budget 2015. We only have a little time to speak to the budget, but I want to take my time to focus on two topics, and they would be seniors, who are extremely important in every constituency, and as time allows, some of the changes for small business.

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Centre.

Since 2006, our government has strengthened the retirement income system and has increased direct support for seniors to address their changing needs. In fact, actions taken by this government have substantially increased the income seniors can earn before they are required to pay income tax.

In 2015, a single senior could claim income of $20,368 before paying any tax at all. I remember what that number was when we got into government nine years ago, and it was considerably lower.

For a couple, it would be $40,720 before they would pay a penny in income tax. That is a remarkable transformation for seniors across this country.

However, that is only one area we have worked on. In the budget there are changes that would add to the benefits seniors see. Economic action plan 2015 continues in this direction by proposing a reduction in minimum withdrawals from registered retirement income funds, RRIFs, and the creation of a home accessibility tax credit.

The reduction in the minimum withdrawal factor takes into account the longer lifespans of Canadians. We all know that we are living longer. For RRIFs, we are requiring now that Canadians take less money out so they can stretch that capital for a longer period of time so that they are far less likely to run out of retirement income before their lives end.

The minimum withdrawal factor for registered retirement income funds is determined by percentage factors, which are on a particular rate of return and indexing assumptions. For example, currently, a senior must withdraw 7.38% of the RRIF in the year he or she is age 71. The new factors proposed will reduce that minimum withdrawal to 5.28% at age 71. By permitting more capital preservation, the new factors will help reduce the risk of outliving one's savings while ensuring that the tax deferral provided on registered retirement savings plans continues to serve into retirement.

The proposed measures would benefit seniors by allowing them to preserve up to 60% more of their registered retirement income funds by age 95, if they so choose. Of course, that is a decision each senior and each couple can make.

The new RRIF withdrawal rates would apply for 2015 and subsequent years. RRIF holders who at any time in 2015 withdraw more than the reduced 2015 minimum amount would be permitted to re-contribute the excess, up to the amount of the proposed reduction in the minimum withdrawal limit, to their RRIFs. Re-contributions would be permitted until February 29, 2016 and would be deductible for the 2015 tax year, reducing the registered retirement income funds minimum withdrawal requirement.

The second change is the introduction of the home accessibility tax credit. A similar measure our government put in a few years ago seemed to be very successful. We would put in place a home accessibility tax credit that would apply to seniors.

Making improvements to improve safety, access, and functionality of a dwelling for seniors and persons with disabilities can be costly. In recognition of this, and of the additional benefits of independent living, economic action plan 2015 proposes a new, permanent home accessibility tax credit. The proposed 15% non-refundable income tax credit would apply to up to $10,000 in eligible home renovation expenditures per year, providing up to $1,500 in tax relief. For some seniors in particular, that is significant. Eligible expenditures would be for improvements that would allow seniors or persons who are eligible for the disability tax credit to be safer and more mobile and to function better in their homes. These are changes that would make a real improvement in the lives of many seniors.

Some people, as well as some in this House, talk about seniors as though they are all low-income wage earners. The reality is that a lot of the personal wealth of the nation is in the hands of seniors. We have a wide range in seniors' incomes. We have seniors who are barely getting by living on the Canada pension plan and perhaps old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. We certainly have that group. However, too often politicians forget about others, such as people who have retired with quite a substantial retirement income, such as a teacher with teacher's income, a nurse with a nurse's income, or someone with a public service pension plan or a private pension plan, on top of the Canada pension plan. I would say that there are a lot of people in that mid range who are doing quite well. For them, of course, the pension income-splitting change we put in place a few years ago for retirement income for seniors is extremely helpful. It saves some seniors a substantial amount of money and allows them to live a lot better in retirement.

The measures in the 2015 economic action plan are on top of a wide range of other changes we have made before.

Of course, there are also a lot of seniors who are in the high-income bracket. The benefits from lowering the federal income tax rate from 11% to 9% in the next few years will help all seniors and all Canadians.

Seniors are extremely important people and are well worth government consideration because of what they have done to build our country. We should thank them on a daily basis for what they have done to build this truly wonderful country of Canada.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague placed a great deal of emphasis on seniors. Well, what seniors are really worried about, especially those in La Pointe-de-l'Île, is health and health care.

The Health Council of Canada, an agency that the Conservatives demolished last year, had in fact proposed that health transfers to the provinces be 6%, in order to respond to demographic changes and to support our aging population. The Conservatives had promised to implement this proposal.

However, now they are telling us that they have revised their proposal and that they have decided to cap transfers at 3%. The provinces are going to find themselves with a shortfall of $36 billion to invest in health care for our seniors.

How does my colleague explain this?

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the member opposite to actually see what our government has done and to look at the reality of the situation and not only refer to her party's talking points, which sometimes, quite frankly, are not accurate. This is one situation where the talking points are not accurate.

We are a government that over nine years has increased transfers to the provinces dramatically. We have increased transfers for health care, and these transfers are designated for health care, by 6% per year. The former Liberal government slashed transfers to the provinces for health care dramatically, downloading onto the provinces and causing an awful lot of problems in the health care system.

We do what is best for health care. We will continue to do that. The members opposite ought to get their talking points right.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to my colleague's speech, especially when he was talking about RRIFs and the new rules for minimum withdrawals under RRIFs. The question that came to mind when listening to that segment of his speech was why there should be minimum withdrawal rates at all.

If we look at it in a certain way, we can really ask that question. Is the government saying, by having minimum withdrawal rates, that seniors cannot decide for themselves how much they want to take out of their RRIFs in any given year? Does having minimum withdrawals not limit seniors' choices in some way?

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I personally agree with him 100%. I think he is right, but it takes time to get there, so our government is taking a really important step, which would substantially reduce the required amount seniors have to take out.

My hope is that in future years, as the budget allows and over a period of time, we will in fact remove that requirement entirely. I would really love to see that, and I look forward to the day down the road when that happens. I agree with the member.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a very specific question about division 18 of the budget implementation act, which grants amnesty from civil or criminal proceedings, among others, for any act committed by a public servant in relation to the destruction of the long gun registry.

Furthermore, the most important element with regard to division 18 is that the Conservatives are exempting the long gun registry from the Access to Information Act. This could set a dangerous precedent, as the government will be able to declare that certain information will be exempted from the Access to Information Act. It would no longer be available to Canadians who make access to information requests.

What does my colleague think of this precedent set by the Conservatives, who are exempting information that would otherwise be available through the Access to Information Act?

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.

This is the party that removed the long gun registry. We have always thought it was a waste of money, that it was ineffective, and that it inappropriately interfered with hunters, farmers, and anyone, really, who wanted to own a long gun.

This is just part of the process to ensure that the registry actually is destroyed, so that farmers, duck hunters, and others can feel very comfortable with the fact that the registry has been destroyed as we promised.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand to speak on economic action plan 2015, the 2015 budget.

When some people imagine budgets, they think about only the numbers and their eyes glaze over. They think budgets might have little impact on everyday people. I would like to point out how this particular budget is very significant for all Canadians and how it makes life better for people in Calgary Centre, whom I am humbled and privileged to represent.

When I spoke on the budget last year, I spoke about how we were planning for a balanced budget and the steps we were taking to lead up to it; this year, we have delivered. A balanced budget is exactly what Calgary residents have told me their number one priority is. We have done it, with a $1.4 billion surplus, despite a precipitous drop in oil prices and an uncertain global economy.

People in Calgary Centre and across Canada are acutely aware that given low oil prices and the state of the global economy, the budget did not balance itself. It happened because of the expert guidance of our Prime Minister, the finance minister, former finance minister Jim Flaherty, and the strong encouragement of our Conservative caucus. The budget is where the rubber hits the road. The budget is the proof of the expert leadership that we getting here in Canada. By balancing the budget, keeping taxes low and delivering more benefits to families, we are keeping Canada the envy of the world.

Last year I spoke about energy being Canada's natural competitive advantage. Every province and territory from coast to coast to coast has benefited from this industry. While the industry is now under considerable pressure, making it more important than ever to diversify our markets to China, to India, and to the EU, this budget includes new environmental measures that will demonstrate to Canadians how we can continue to develop and sustain our resources. Energy and the environment can be nurtured and developed together.

This sets us apart from the NDP, whose leader branded the energy industry as spreading Dutch disease, and the Liberals, whose leader opposes many pipelines and west coast tanker traffic, which we know we need in order to get our product to these markets.

We know that Canadians want to make sure that energy development is safe for the environment, as do we. The natural resources minister has emphasized that projects will not proceed unless they are safe for people and safe for the environment. They have to pass a rigorous scientific and fact-based inquiry by the National Energy Board as well as undergo a complete environmental assessment. This budget includes $80 million over five years for the National Energy Board to do its job and give Canadians that assurance.

It is coupled with a strict new polluter pays bill, Bill C-46, that puts energy firms on the hook for clean-ups, thus giving them extra impetus to make sure they get our resources to market without incident—which, incidentally, they do 99.999% of the time. Canadians can have confidence that our environment will be protected as we develop our competitive advantage in energy.

I would like to talk about another type of competitive advantage that this budget provides, and that is economic freedom.

This year, with a balanced budget, we can maintain and grow funding to important areas in health and education, as my hon. friend just spoke about, and at the same time provide tax cuts and benefits to help Canadians balance their own budgets. Unlike the Liberals, we do not believe that Canadians will spend those returned tax dollars on beer and popcorn. “This is people's own money”, the Prime Minister said. “We want to make sure more of it stays in their pockets and creates jobs and economic growth.”

What are the differences in the way Conservatives and other parties view the money that Canadians earn? Our government believes in economic freedom, and this year Canada was ranked number six in the world by the Economic Freedom of the World report. Economic freedom gives Canadians an opportunity to earn and an opportunity to decide how they wish to spend, rather than having those decisions made by someone else. When there is economic freedom, people have more control over their lives, and yes, government has less control.

In contrast to the other parties' belief that the government should take in as much money as it can, our government is taking less, and we are balancing the budget today so we are not mortgaging our children's futures.

Our latest family tax cut would give 1.7 million families more control over their lives. These tax relief measure would give parents like Sara and Sam an extra $6,640 this year that they could spend as they see fit. This measure would have a considerable impact on the quality of life of all Canadian families.

Retirees like Bill and Ruth would also have more economic freedom under economic action plan 2015. Seniors could put off taking funds out of their tax-protected RRIFs and leave the money there longer until it is needed.

What if I am not like Sara and Sam, or a retired couple like Bill and Ruth? What is there in the budget for me? For many young Canadians, owning a home looked like a distant goal, but we have introduced the first-time home buyers' tax credit of up to $5,000 for those buying their first home.

There are incentives for people who are retired. There are incentives for apprentices who want to take apprenticeship training. There are incentives for students who want to go back to school. The bottom line is that our federal government is giving Canadians more economic freedom by giving them more money in their pockets so they can decide how to use it. We are helping the middle class and those who want to join it.

Now I would like to talk about another of the human sides of enterprise, and that is people in need.

Two years ago, Albertans suddenly found themselves grappling with the largest natural disaster in Canadian history, the 2013 southern Alberta flood. As June approaches again, Calgarians in my riding are looking at the skies and praying that there will not be another once-in-a-hundred-years flood.

I can tell them that as a government, we have been acting. As most know, $2.8 billion in federal funds was set aside for flood recovery costs in Alberta. In addition to those funds, $134 million is currently being put into Environment Canada monitoring networks and satellite warning and forecast systems to better predict major events like the 2013 Alberta flood.

Our government has also committed to investing $200 million over four years into mitigation, which would include money for mapping. This is very important for insurance companies, which need it in order to provide flood insurance in Canada for the first time.

Further, federal infrastructure dollars could now be used for disaster mitigation projects. It is now up to the Province of Alberta to prioritize disaster mitigation on its agenda, and I urge the new premier to do that.

In this budget, our government is continuing the Building Canada plan. This is the largest and longest-running infrastructure program in Canadian history. Cities have never seen the kind of funding they are seeing now from our federal government. The program would see $53 billion invested in infrastructure across Canada over 10 years. Alberta would receive $3.2 billion, with $942 million coming from the new Building Canada fund and an estimated $2.27 billion coming from the federal gas tax fund. That is a lot of zeros.

Calgary has gained $427 million through the federal gas tax fund since 2006. We have invested in such projects as finishing the Calgary ring road and improving Calgary's transit. The city sets these priorities.

Federally, we are also helping to fund some 27 summer festivals, such as Sled Island and GlobalFest. There are things like CIFF, and theatre groups like One Yellow Rabbit and the Calgary Spoken Word Festival. We have provided more than $25 million to the gorgeous new National Music Centre in Calgary, $20 million to the Bella Concert Hall at Mount Royal University, and $25 million to the Agrium Centre at Stampede Park.

We have balanced the budget while maintaining and increasing transfer payments to the provinces for important things like health care.

This is happening not only in Alberta, but all across the country. People's lives are better and richer because of our budget. Albertans' lives are better, New Brunswickers' lives are better, British Columbians' lives are better, and we have balanced our budget. That is what leadership looks like.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her presentation. I think this shows us the extent to which the Conservatives like to dream in Technicolor.

My colleague ended her speech by saying that the budget was really making things better for people living in New Brunswick. I would like to point out that a lot of people in New Brunswick who work in the oil patch in Alberta have lost their jobs. I do not see anything in the budget that will help them. In addition, I would like to point out that many of the workers in New Brunswick are seasonal workers and that the budget will be digging even more deeply into the employment insurance fund, for a total of $17 billion over five years. That will bring the amount that the government has taken out of the EI fund to more than $24 billion. This is coming close to the $50 billion that the Liberals took. Things are obviously going well. At the same time as they are taking money from New Brunswickers, the government is proposing measures that will benefit only the wealthiest 15% in Canada.

Is my colleague not ashamed to say that they are going to balance the budget and it will be a good thing for everybody? Basically, she is saying the opposite of what her own Minister of Finance has said. He said that it would be our grandchildren who would be paying for this budget.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to spin a budget with such good news as something that is bad.

I want to use the example of a fellow named Ronnie, who could be from New Brunswick. Ronnie is an apprentice. He is a Red Seal apprentice. A person like Ronnie will receive $1,715 in tax relief and increased benefits this year.

We have programs like the Canada job grant and the Canada apprentice loan. With this budget we are also creating better harmonization of certification requirements across the country, so that if there is not a job in New Brunswick, Ronnie can move to another province for work. He can even take the training there to find work.

Businesses have told us that is exactly what they need, and guys like Ronnie from New Brunswick have told us that is exactly what they need as well. We have jobs still waiting for folks like that.

This budget provides for many sectors of our society, including students and people from New Brunswick.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, here we are in an election year, and the Conservative government says we have a balanced budget. I do not believe that, quite frankly.

If we look at the government's balanced budget, what did it do? It borrowed out of the contingency fund—something that other ministers said they would never do to balance the books—and then it sold off $2 billion worth of GM shares in order to get a surplus of just over $1 billion.

That is a fudged balanced budget, and we will not know until after the next federal election whether or not it is, in fact, balanced.

A former speaker said we should just reflect on the Liberal provincial government. Would it not be better to reflect upon the last Liberal administration, when we had Jean Chrétien with balanced budgets and Paul Martin with balanced budgets? In fact, the Liberals handed the government the last balanced budget it actually had.

I wonder if the member might want to tell Canadians and her constituents whether she really believes that they do have a balanced budget that has actually been earned.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, members have no idea how glad I am the member asked that question, because I was there when Jean Chrétien came to Alberta and gave Alberta less money per capita for health care than every other province in Canada. We have corrected that.

Not only that: we have increased funding for health care. Funding for health care for all provinces will go up under this budget. That is what quality of life for Canadians looks like. It is not what they saw under the Liberals.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to once again participate in this debate on the budget implementation bill on behalf of the people I represent in Parkdale—High Park, in Toronto.

The people in Parkdale—High Park, like most Torontonians and probably most Canadians, are pretty fair-minded people. They are thoughtful, they pay attention to what is going on, and they are pretty community-minded. They get involved in their neighbourhood. They are good volunteers. They really want government to help them and their communities.

First of all, on their behalf I have to say that so many people have written to me that they are offended that the government insists on bringing in these omnibus budget bills that are basically an amalgam of several pieces of legislation. This particular bill is 150 pages long, with 270 clauses, and dozens of acts thrown in together, many of which have nothing to do with the budget.

My constituents are offended by the process with which the government brings in its legislation. They always ask what the Conservatives are trying to hide, in refusing to have open, thorough debate and open discussion of their legislation.

Joining me in this debate today, I would like to inform the Speaker that I will be splitting my time with the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

This omnibus bill is a way to obscure what is in fact the real legislative agenda of the government. The other thing people in my community have said is that they find the notion that this is a balanced budget is a bit of a sleight of hand. Technically, I suppose we could call it that. However, the way to a so-called razor-thin balanced budget has been through devastating cuts to the public service in Canada. So many things that Canadians rely on, whether it is food safety, transportation safety, or the support for veterans have been cut; they are the services that government needs to be providing for Canadians.

That is not fair. It is not a true balance. It really is undercutting what Canadians are paying for. I think Canadians know they are getting a very raw deal with the government and its phony balanced budget. They also know that getting to this balanced budget came by way of raiding the employment insurance fund. Less than 40% of unemployed Canadians even have access to the employment insurance benefits that they need when they are unemployed, benefits they have paid into. They and their employers paid premiums into this fund, and then when they lose their job and need the fund, for the vast majority of them, it is not there. In the city of Toronto, I think only about 20% of people who lose their job are able to access employment insurance.

The government, like the Liberals before them, has dug in with both hands, scooped up a lot of money and used it to cover off its deficits.

The other thing the government has done is that it has had a bit of a fire sale, selling off GM shares at a loss, which basically gave up any opportunity to have a window on General Motors, especially when there is a lot of concern and uncertainty about continued investment by General Motors in Canada. It seemed to be a particularly bad time for Canada to sell those shares.

The government also got its supposed balance by raiding the rainy day fund, the contingency fund for Canada.

The government should not hang its hat on what a great economic manager it is, because it has in fact made choices that really have not been in the best interest of the majority of Canadians. It could have used this budget to create child care spaces. It promised to create 100,000 child care spaces. The Prime Minister himself promised that.

Guess how many child care spaces the government has created? The Conservatives have created exactly the same number as the Liberals before them, and that number is zero, none, nada. They have failed to create even one child care space for Canadians. That is shameful and I think a terrible legacy for this and the previous government in this country.

On infrastructure, our cities and communities across this country are crying out for effective infrastructure investment. I come from Toronto where we are effectively stuck in gridlock. The Toronto Board of Trade estimates that we lose, as an economy, $6 billion every single year because of lack of infrastructure investment. This is cumulative. Not only has the current government failed to invest in infrastructure, but it is building on the previous failures of Liberal governments before it.

Sadly, we are now in this situation where we have gridlocked roads, crumbling bridges, bursting water mains, and electricity that goes out whenever there is a bad storm. This is no way to run the biggest city, the engine of our economy here in Canada. It is no way to run Toronto or any other community. I say it is a disgrace and failure on the part of the current federal government.

We also see a real housing crisis in this country, which is one of the biggest causes of poverty in Canada. People cannot afford a decent roof over their heads. I see it in my community of Parkdale where people are paying far too much for poor-quality rental accommodation. We have recently seen big multinational companies like Akelius come in and do superficial, cosmetic renovations and jack up the rent, and people are forced out of their homes.

I want to pay tribute to people in Parkdale who have gone to the Landlord and Tenant Board, challenged those decisions, and won some victories for affordable housing in our community. However, we need to have the federal government at our backs supporting the community, supporting Canadians who work hard and are looking for a decent, affordable place to live. We need the government's support, and we need a national housing strategy. Sadly, this was cancelled in Canada under the previous Liberal government, but the current Conservative government had a chance to do something about housing and it has failed.

Another major issue in my community is the Union Pearson Express: the express line that goes from the largest railway station, Union Station, to our largest airport, Pearson. There will be trains running every seven and a half minutes past many houses, schools, and daycares in our neighbourhood. Sadly, the Ontario provincial Liberal government has created a diesel train to do this. No other city in the world is putting diesel trains running that often through major urban areas. It was not done in Vancouver, and other cities around the world are investing in electric trains. However, our community is subjected to dirty diesel.

We have finally, through incredible community pressure, persuaded the provincial government that, yes, electric is better, but it has not budgeted any money to actually make the change to electric. This is an infrastructure investment that the federal government could have made and should have made. The people of Toronto want to see clean transportation, clean electric, and it should have been built once, built right, but there is a chance to have this corrected.

There are two other areas that the government could have acted on but did not, and one is reducing the cost of remittances. The government did talk about studying remittances, but I have a proposal into the House to limit the cost to 5% for remittances for new Canadians to send money back to their home country, which would have been a real cost saving. Second, the government also could have dramatically improved the lot of interns. The government has made some steps in the current budget, but the Conservatives inexplicably failed to protect interns from sexual harassment and exploitative hours of work.

I could go on for some time talking about what is not in the budget. Sadly, what the Conservatives have chosen to spend the money on are the people who are the wealthiest, at the very top income level, and have used the taxes of the rest of Canadians to do that.

This is a failed budget, and that is why we will be voting against it. However, Canadians will have a chance to make a different choice this October, and then we will bring in a budget that is good for all Canadians.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the start of the hon. member's speech, when she said, quite rightly, that the government really has not balanced this budget at all, that it has done so through sleight of hand.

Just by way of analogy, when being interviewed for a job, people are often asked if they have done the job before. If they do not have a lot of experience, the interviewer may ask if they have done something similar before, if they have skills that they have proven can be adapted to that situation.

The Conservative government has never balanced a budget. Not only has the current Conservative government not balanced a budget, but the Conservative government before, the Mulroney government, did not balance a budget. Why should we believe that the Conservatives have the skills and job qualifications to balance the budget?

For the hon. member, given that the NDP made it possible for the government to get the job in 2006, are she and her colleagues not feeling a bit of buyer's remorse?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that somehow Liberals could be at the centre of a massive corruption scandal using Canadians' tax dollars and basically paying off their own people, as the Gomery commission found very well. Only the Liberals could then have the arrogance to blame New Democrats or blame Canadians for making a choice other than for the Liberals. To me, it is failing to learn from the past, and it is failing to learn the basic lesson of humility.

Having said that, I do take the point of the hon. member, and I respect the point that he is making, that we have had seven deficit budgets from the current Conservative government. I look at governments like that of Roy Romanow and Gary Doer, who balanced budget after budget. Tommy Douglas, for that matter, balanced budget after budget. Do members know who has the best record of balancing budgets in this country? It is the NDP.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her assessment of this budget, which, in fact, is going to be good for the wealthy but will not do anything for the middle class or those who have trouble making ends meet.

I want to talk about one very specific thing in this bill. It is positive overall, but 50% of the problem has been overlooked. I am speaking about copyright. The protection for recorded works has been extended to 70 years after their composer has died, but the works themselves have been completely left out. That creates a gap of 20 years where the recording or reproduction of the work is protected, but not the work itself that a person has created. That is a real problem.

I would like to hear what my colleague thinks about this.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

The budget contains more protection for the companies who produce the recordings. Still, the works themselves and their composers do not benefit from the same protection. Artists already have enough trouble making ends meet, and we should help them as much as possible. This is another failure of this government, which has not supported artists and their works in this budget. It is another example that shows that this government really has not worked for the middle class or helped most Canadians. It is truly one of their failures.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and offer my thoughts on Bill C-59, the budget implementation bill.

Once again, I have a number of reservations about this budget. Sadly, we on this side of the House cannot support it. Once again, the Conservatives have slipped several measures into this budget in order to justify their lament that the opposition does not support certain measures.

For example, we would like to support the measures to assist veterans, but the Conservatives have slipped them into a mammoth budget implementation bill.

At 150 pages, it is shorter than some, like BillC-38, which had hundreds of pages. When the Conservatives were in opposition, they denounced mammoth bills, even if they had only a few dozen pages. Today we are looking at a 150-page bill.

This is stopping us from holding a full debate on the provisions of the bill. This was the case with Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, and now it is the case with Bill C-59. The opposition members, like the government members, who should be keeping an eye on their own government, are simply not able to do so with the means available to them.

I would like to point out that the Conservatives have imposed time allocation for the 96th time, limiting the time available to debate a bill as important as the budget. This makes no sense. The NDP would have liked to support certain measures in the bill, because they are ideas put forward originally by the NDP that the government decided to borrow. For this, I congratulate the government.

For instance, the tax rate on small and medium-sized businesses will go from 11% to 9%. The change will be made over five years, because the Conservatives have decided to spread the measure over a number of years, but it will be quite helpful to SMEs, which are the ones creating jobs in Canada. This measure deserves our support, but unfortunately, the Conservatives have combined measures that we can support with ones that we simply cannot support.

Moreover, the budget contains no measures regarding the Transport Canada wharfs. The Conservatives were very happy to spend time in eastern Canada recently, to underline their $33 million investment in the Transport Canada port divestiture program.

Unfortunately, this is the same $33 million that was announced last year, and $9 million of it has already been spent. There is only $24 million left to be shared among the 50 wharfs that the government is proposing to transfer. Two of the Transport Canada wharfs are in my riding, and just these two would exceed the amount of money that remains for the 50 wharfs across Canada that the government would like to transfer.

When the government says it is helping people, what does that mean in concrete terms? We cannot accept their offer, because it is just too little.

Recently, I heard a Conservative MP saying that the Conservatives had introduced one of the largest infrastructure programs in Canada’s history. However, this money will be spent in the future. They have announced amounts of money that the budget does not cover at all, and they are trying to make us believe that with a budget of $54 billion over 10 years they are going to spend the largest amount of money in Canada’s history on infrastructure.

Unfortunately, the facts tell quite a different story. Last year, the government spent only $250 million of the $54 billion. Its assistance to municipalities and organizations to implement infrastructure programs was extremely discreet.

It is disgraceful that the government is congratulating itself about money it has never spent and that it is trying to make people believe that it is carrying out this program, even though it is a phantom program, since we are unable to find this money.

Furthermore, this budget does not help the regions, and in fact the opposite is true.

The Conservatives say that they have balanced the budget, but once again, they have done so using both the contingency fund and the employment insurance fund.

This year, the government is planning to filch $1.7 billion from the employment insurance fund to balance its budget. It likes to brag about its $1.8 billion surplus, but it is pretty clear where that money came from. The government is even planning to help itself to $17 billion from the employment insurance fund over five years. It is quickly catching up to the Liberals' record. They too bragged about balancing a budget, and they too did so at workers' expense. Since the Chrétien government's reform, the government has taken $57 billion from the employment insurance fund. The Liberals swiped $50 billion, the Conservatives $7 billion. Now they are planning to snatch another $17 billion from the fund.

They say they are going to balance the budget, but they are doing so at the expense of the poorest, the neediest. Seasonal workers and workers who lose their jobs will pay the price. Roughly four out of 10 workers are not even entitled to employment insurance benefits even though they all contribute to the fund. Those people will never see a penny. The government is busy taking money from the insurance fund and, instead of giving it to the people who contribute, funnelling it into programs that will benefit Canada's wealthiest people.

With regard to the Conservatives' proposed income splitting, the Parliamentary Budget Officer clearly said that only 15% of Canadians will benefit, and most of them are among the wealthiest people in this country.

The wealthiest people do not need more help. There are some Canadians who are unemployed and others who are facing job losses. Today, 1,700 employees of Bombardier, a pillar of Canadian industry, are unemployed. They are facing an employment insurance fund that has been pillaged repeatedly by the government. There is no more room to manoeuvre.

When the government says that it has balanced the budget, it means that we are at the point where the government has squeezed programs so much that there is no more room to manoeuvre. Someone who has lost a job or works part time will find it very difficult to make ends meet.

Today's budget is simply not going to help the poor, and that includes measures like income splitting and tax-free savings accounts, or TFSAs. The tax-free savings account limit is being raised to $10,000. In my riding, I can tell you that the number of people who can take advantage of that and put $10,000 into a tax-free savings account is very small. What is more, that money will then not be spent in the riding; it will sit in a savings account.

We need programs that put money in people's pockets and encourage people to have a greater impact on their local economy. Those are the kinds of programs that will help grow the economy. We need to help small and medium-sized businesses, because they create jobs, and that is what will help create wealth. What matters to the NDP is putting money into the pockets of people who really need it, rather than giving more to rich.

I am very disappointed in this budget, which once again gives priority to people who will perhaps vote for the Conservatives in the upcoming election. Unfortunately, the people who are being ignored by this government and who will not get the help they need from this budget are precisely those who are currently unemployed or otherwise struggling. The budget contains very little for those individuals.

However, the budget does include something that I think is good for retirees regarding registered retirement income funds. Now people will have the choice to put off withdrawing from their RRIFs a little longer. This will help people who are retired. However, let us not forget that those who do not have the means to put enough money in an RRSP will have to wait until they are 67 before they can get old age security. They will pay dearly for not having enough money in an RRSP. This was done without warning and without consultation. The government simply imposed this.

These people did not have enough time to adjust their budget and now have a major deficit for their retirement years. This budget will do nothing to help them.

We absolutely need to have a budget that will help the less fortunate. The government has a role to play as an advocate for the people who are most in need. The government should help those in need, but unfortunately the budget before us does not do that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine will have five minutes for questions and comments when the House resumes debate on this motion.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to say that I will be splitting my time today with my colleague, the hard-working member for Red Deer.

I am very pleased today to rise and be given this opportunity to speak to the economic action plan 2015 act, no. 1.

As we all know in this House, the economic action plan is an important blueprint that would deliver more tax relief to individuals and small businesses; invest in communities; fund research, innovation, and skills training; help our most vulnerable; and maintain Canada's future as a world economic leader. It delivers on the priorities of Canadians, including my constituents in the great riding of Richmond Hill and throughout York Region, the region that I live in, and I am pleased today to highlight a few of the very important measures in the economic action plan 2015 act, no. 1, that would benefit all Canadians.

The first section I would like to speak about today deals with infrastructure.

Infrastructure is a major priority for residents of Richmond Hill and York Region, and indeed across the country. We know that our ability to compete in the global economy depends in part on the reliability of quality public infrastructure. That is why our government spearheaded the largest long-term federal commitment toward infrastructure in Canada's history, the new Building Canada fund. This plan would dedicate a historic $53 billion over the next 10 years for infrastructure. In fact, the annual federal support for infrastructure has increased from some $571 million in 2004 to an estimated $4.85 billion in 2015. That is a 750% increase. This is a very significant investment, and it is precisely why Canada has led the entire G7 in public investment growth over the last decade.

In Richmond Hill, we see the results of our infrastructure investments in every corner of the municipality. They include recreational facilities such as the Oak Ridges Community Centre, a new community centre funded in part from federal money coming through the gas tax fund. About $2.4 million went into this state-of-the-art facility, which is serving Oak Ridges, a growing community in York Region and a key component of the great town of Richmond Hill. There is the Elvis Stojko Arena, to which hundreds of families, if not thousands, bring their children to participate in skating activities. They come not only from Richmond Hill but from the entire York Region area.

We also have Viva and rapid transit buses, and there is a new transit facility in Richmond Hills' Headford Business Park. Federal dollars have helped build the infrastructure my residents have come to depend on every single day.

I need to highlight that York Region is growing in leaps and bounds. It is a region that today numbers more than 1.2 million people. In fact, a lot has been said by members in the House about the fact that this year is an election year and that we will return to find 338 seats in this place. Three of the new seats created in this country are in York Region. It is growing in leaps and bounds, and our government is doing a lot for the families that call York Region their home. That includes great towns like Aurora, Richmond Hill, the city of Markham, the city of Vaughan, and the town of Stouffville. We are doing many things and we are planning to do still more.

Economic action plan 2015 would build on this funding by providing $750 million over two years and $1 billion each year thereafter for a dedicated public transit fund. We are also investing $5.8 billion over six years to build and renew federal infrastructure assets, including Canadian Armed Forces facilities and on-reserve schools. All of these investments will ensure that Richmond Hill, York Region, Ontario, and all of the provinces and territories across Canada will continue to benefit from world-class infrastructure.

The second area I want to touch upon has to do with the folks who have put their lives on the line for the rights and privileges that so many of us take for granted: freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. I am speaking, of course, about our veterans.

We owe a great deal to our veterans and their families. As a proud member of the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 375 in Richmond Hill and as a frequent visitor to Branch 385 in Aurora, I know our government is working hard to deliver the services and benefits they deserve. That is why I am proud to tell our Legions in York Region that economic action plan 2015 includes many improvements for veterans, such as enhanced benefits for severely disabled and part-time reserve force veterans and increased support for family caregivers. It includes a new critical injury benefit to compensate eligible Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans for the immediate consequences of very severe and traumatic injuries sustained in the line of duty.

We also propose to expand life benefits to veterans to compensate for the loss of employment potential and career advancement opportunities caused by disabilities suffered while serving in the Canadian Armed Forces. Economic action plan 2015 would improve the ratio of case managers and veterans to 30 to 1 so that veterans would receive the level of individualized care they need and deserve.

Our government will continue to stand up for veterans and provide them and their families the much-needed services and assistance they need. Now that they have completed their service to our country, it is time for us to provide the services to them that they deserve.

I want to speak a little about expanding new markets.

International trade and investment are vital to the continued growth of the Canadian economy and the prosperity of people and businesses across Canada. Access to foreign markets and the reduction of trade barriers are essential to helping Canadian exporters grow. That is why we have worked hard since taking office in 2006 to conclude free trade agreements with 38 countries, bringing Canada's total to 43. Before our Conservative government and the leadership of our Prime Minister, there were only five. Now there are 43 trade agreements with countries around the world.

The Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, for example, would provide preferred access to the world's largest and most lucrative market of more than 500 million consumers in 28 countries. It would provide access to a market of $17 trillion, adding $12 billion to Canada's GDP and potentially creating 80,000 additional Canadian jobs. In fact, because of our government's determined actions, Canada has preferential access to more than half of the world's markets.

To assist Canadian companies to take advantage of these new global opportunities, economic action plan 2015 would provide $152 million in trade promotion investments. This money would be used to create a new export market development program and support Canadian firms with on-the-ground intelligence and practical advice on foreign markets. These investments would help the businesses in my riding and businesses across the country take advantage of these new and exciting trade opportunities.

We know that a safe and clean environment supports a high quality of life and contributes to a strong economy. That is why our government has taken significant action to protect the environment. Specific proposals include $75 million for the Species at Risk Act, $2 million to protect salmon habitat, $30 million to extend the recreational fisheries conservation program, $34 million to support weather warning services in the Arctic, $491.8 million to assess and manage risks to human health, and so forth.

The Oak Ridges Moraine is an ecologically significant land form that runs through 32 municipalities, including Aurora, Oak Ridges and Richmond Hill, and nine conservation authorities. Often referred to as the “rain barrel of southern Ontario”, it forms the headwaters of 65 streams, and directly and indirectly delivers clean drinking water to millions of people.

I could go on and on about the many measures in the budget pertaining to our environment and the measures to enhance our national security, but in the interests of time I would be pleased to field questions from the hon. members here.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, here he is, trying to say that this would be the best budget ever. Well, let us be very clear: over and over again, we have seen the government put through omnibus budgets containing items that do not even belong in a budget bill.

I am from Ontario and I can say that what we see for Ontario in this budget once again demonstrates that the Conservatives just do not understand the priorities of Ontario. Hundreds of thousands of good manufacturing jobs have disappeared. During question period we indicated how many more have disappeared under the current government's watch, yet the Conservatives have offered the barest minimum of support for manufacturing and have failed to build a balanced economy.

We heard the Conservatives saying during question period that they are the protectors of jobs and job creators. If that is the case, why are we losing so many jobs in Canada under their watch?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was not listening to the answers in question period. If she had been, she would have heard that we have created over 1.2 million jobs since the depth of the global economic downturn. I might add that 80% of those jobs are full time, of which two-thirds are in high-wage sectors.

Like her, I am also a member of Parliament from Ontario. In fact, there are 76 Conservative members of Parliament from Ontario. We are here and we are fighting hard for our constituents every single day.

I want to bring to the member's attention page 379 of the budget document that every member of Parliament was given the day the hon. Minister of Finance presented it to the House. If the member looked there, she would see the four major transfers to the provinces. This is a key point for my hon. colleague from Ontario opposite. The transfers will amount to almost $68 billion in 2015-16. In fact, I will inform the hon. member that the federal transfers to the Province of Ontario have increased from $10.8 billion in 2006, when the Conservative Party took over as government of this country, to over $20 billion this year.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this Conservative budget will go down in history as one of those budgets that truly favours Canada's wealthy, at a great cost to the middle class of Canada and those aspiring to become a part of Canada's middle class.

The best example that comes to mind offhand has to be income splitting. Less than 15% of Canada's population would benefit from it, and that 15% are Canada's wealthiest.

Let us contrast that to the Liberal plan, which proposes a 7% tax cut across the board for Canada's middle class. We would argue that even the wealthiest Canadians recognize that at times we need to assist our middle class by giving them a tax break. A healthy middle class means a strong, healthy economy. Would the member not agree?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will not contrast a balanced budget that is delivering to every single family in this country from coast to coast to coast with a Liberal plan that is not balanced and not costed and has a $3 billion hole in it. It is a wishy little pre-election document that the Liberals are promising people over just a couple of months. They have had four years to talk in this House about the things that could be done. Now they have brought out a plan that is not balanced and they expect us to contrast it with something that has delivered proven results for Canadians.

I would say this to the member. This budget will go down in history, but it will go down in history for helping families and communities prosper. We propose to increase the tax-free savings account annual contribution to $10,000, and 11 million Canadians have already availed themselves of this important program.

I also want to mention family support. The member spoke about income splitting, which would help families in which one parent is not earning as much money as the other. They can save up to $2,000 on their taxes. Every single family with children will benefit—not some, as would happen under the Liberals' convoluted plan. Every family with children under the age of six would receive $1,920 per year, and every family with children between the ages of six to 17 would receive $720.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to outline some of the reasons I will be supporting our government's budget and its budget implementation bill, Bill C-59.

Before I go into the details about the new investments and the tax relief the budget proposes and how Bill C-59 would make this happen, I want to stress how important it is that our government has had all of these significant achievements while balancing the budget. An election promise made is an election promise kept.

As a result of our government's fiscal management, our country emerged from the recession faster and stronger than virtually any other advanced economy. When the recession ended, we charted a course to a balanced budget, but not by following the Liberal approach to budget management of making drastic, sudden cuts to social and health care transfers, or by raising taxes. Instead, we did the opposite, increasing provincial transfers to record levels to help the provinces get their fiscal houses in order and lowering taxes to put money back into the pockets of families and small businesses.

To the first point, Alberta alone would receive $5.5 billion in transfers this year, which would be an increase of 145% over those of the previous Liberal government.

We then focused on controlling operating expenses for federal departments by reviewing all spending to make government operations more efficient. Using this approach, since the height of the great recession the deficit has been reduced from $55.6 billion to a surplus of $1.4 billion for 2015-16.

Due to the growth in Canada's economy and the elimination of the deficit, our total government net debt burden is the lowest of any G7 nation and among the lowest of the advanced G20 countries.

As a result of our efforts, our government has been able to cut taxes 180 times, resulting in our country's lowest tax burden since the 1950s.

To ensure that Canada keeps its fiscal house in order, economic action plan 2015 includes a number of important measures to help Canada stay on the right track, most notably through balanced budget legislation.

Part 3, on page 38 of Bill C-59, presents the framework for this balanced budget legislation by mandating that should Canada again enter into deficit, the finance minister would be required to testify before the House of Commons Committee on Finance within 30 days and present a plan, with concrete timelines, to return to balanced budgets.

Moreover, should the deficit be due to a recession or other extraordinary circumstances, operating spending would be frozen, as would the salaries of cabinet ministers and deputy ministers government-wide.

If, on the other hand, the deficit was due to mismanagement, operating budgets would be frozen automatically, and the salaries of cabinet ministers and deputy ministers alike would be reduced by 5%.

This approach would ensure that increases in spending that might be required to respond to a recession, war, or some natural disaster would be temporary, targeted, and timely.

In central Alberta, one of the key pillars of our local economy is agriculture. This budget, like previous ones, would continue to support agriculture and farmers in our great region and throughout all of Canada.

Agriculture is truly the backbone of our nation. As a farmer, I understand the difficulties individuals in the agriculture sector face. Economic action plan 2015 would embrace the economic importance of agriculture by increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1 million for farmers and fishermen, allowing them to keep more of their lifelong earnings for retirement.

Additionally, this budget would provide funding to the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Market Access Secretariat, allowing the agriculture sector to take advantage of new free trade deals to expand and diversify into new markets.

The economic action plan of 2015 would build upon previous support for farmers and agriculture, including over $3 billion in investment, including provincial and territorial contributions, toward innovation, competitiveness, and market development for Canada's agricultural sector under Growing Forward 2.

We have also fully delivered on our government's commitment to marketing freedom by increasing marketing choice for western Canadian grain farmers by facilitating the commercialization of the Canadian Wheat Board, which will ensure a strong and competitive grain handling and shipping network across Canada.

Another major issue that is quite close to my heart is, of course, our government's support for seniors. Through this budget, our government has proposed a number of changes to help make seniors' lives better and to help them stay in their homes longer.

Having just a small amount of time, I can only focus on a few of the many policy initiatives our government has proposed. The first I would like to speak to is the increase in the tax-free savings account.

Seniors have embraced the tax-free savings account for their saving needs. This budget, through the BIA, proposes to increase the annual contribution limit to $10,000. This, coupled with changes to RRSP withdrawal amounts, would provide seniors with even greater opportunities to manage their life savings.

As of the end of 2013, nearly 11 million individuals had opened TFSAs, and the total value of assets held in TFSAs was nearly $120 billion. While the opposition continues to spread misinformation that the TFSA accounts are only for the rich, the facts cannot be overlooked. In the income category of $20,000 to $25,000, over 124,000 Canadians maxed out their limit. Of those who have maxed out their TFSAs, 60% earn less than $60,000. Some 856,000 Canadians aged 65 and over have maxed out their contributions, and another 1.3 million 55 and older have done the same. Close to 2. 7 million seniors had TFSAs by the end of 2013, and 60% of seniors who had TFSAs earned less than $40,000.

I think this is clear proof of how tax-free savings accounts are beneficial for all Canadians and are especially embraced by seniors and middle- to low-income individuals.

The second major policy change to support seniors I want to focus on is one that would help seniors stay in their homes longer. This is important and much needed, because as seniors age, their homes become increasingly less accessible, and they are often forced to move into more accessible housing, such as retirement and nursing homes. This can be incredibly difficult and stressful.

Our government recognizes the challenges seniors face in remaining mobile and independent and as a result has introduced a new home accessibility tax credit. This proposed tax credit would be for home improvements that would allow a senior or a person eligible for a disability tax credit to be more mobile, safe, and functional within his or her own home. This 15% non-refundable income tax credit would apply to up to $10,000 in eligible home renovation expenditures, providing up to $1,500 in tax relief. Through the home accessibility tax credit, Canadian seniors would be able to stay in their homes longer, I cannot stress enough how important that is.

The last initiative I want to talk about is the extension of the employment insurance compassionate care benefit from six weeks to six months. This is important to all Canadians, because from time to time, a large number of Canadians are forced to leave their jobs to take care of their loved ones. This can put a huge financial stress on families. Our government has recognized this problem, and through economic action plan 2015, an allocation of up to $37 million has been made annually to extend employment insurance compassionate care benefits. This would help reduce the stress at a very stressful time and help families help themselves.

In summary, it is clear that our government's economic action plan of 2015 and this budget implementation act, which sets the framework for legislative change, would be beneficial for all Canadians.

Our expanded limit for tax-free savings accounts of $10,000 would allow hard-working Canadians to save more.

Farmers throughout Canada would continue to benefit from our aggressive trade policy, which has opened up new markets that will help grow our agriculture sector and our economy as a whole. The increase in the lifetime capital gains exemption would give farmers and fisherman more money they can use for retirement.

Through our balanced budget legislation, future generations would not live in fear of being saddled with irresponsible spending and mountains of debt.

All in all, this entire budget is something to be proud of, and I encourage members of the opposition to join me in supporting it.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I am always surprised to hear members on the government side brag about so-called family measures. I would like to draw my colleague's attention to two regular columnists for Les Affaires, a very reputable business newspaper in Quebec. These columnists are both tax experts. Dany Provost's editorial was called “Conservative budget: nothing impressive”. He warned families that there were pitfalls associated with the new universal child care benefit, the UCCB. He told people not to spend the cheque coming in July on their summer vacation since they will have to pay a big chunk come tax time next year. Josée Jeffrey, a tax expert and financial auditor, said that the UCCB was all smoke and mirrors. I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with the opinions of these financial planning and tax experts.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not agree with their comments. Of course, I do not mean the opposition's comments particularly but the comments of the person the member was quoting. I have heard it mentioned by the Liberals that if we give people money, they are going to spend it on popcorn and beer. I have heard that, but I have not seen that from any credible source anywhere else.

It is rather important that people recognize some of the help that is going to be there for Canadians and certainly for families with children. One of the things we continue to hear, which I do not think people recognize, is that increasing the child care expense deduction dollar limit would allow more money to come into a family unit. If it was increased by $1,000 for every child, which is part of the budget implementation act, it would also help on the other side. The concept is that those who have less money would be taxed less, so there will be more dollars in their pockets.

I have trust in Canadians to handle their funds.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I could give the member a clear example of why the Conservative budget is unfair in its taxation policy.

Let us use the tax-free savings account as the example. Of people who make between $20,000 and $40,000 a year, between 5% and 6% would actually max out the benefits of that tax break. For people making over $200,000 a year, it would be well over 30% and would probably closer to about 36%. What they are doing is providing a tax break that the wealthiest in Canada are going to be able to take advantage of. Not very many of the constituents I represent have an extra $10,000 kicking around the house that they can invest in a TFSA. That is where Canadians sense that the government of Canada is not being fair.

I am wondering if the member can explain to my constituents and Canadians why he believes that what I just said is wrong, because it is true.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the member opposite, it is not true.

Those who do not have a lot money also do not have a lot of opportunities or a lot of instruments for saving. This is one they can look at and deal with. We can see that it happens. When seniors are being forced to take money out of other various financial instruments, they want some place to put it. They are not necessarily going to be spending it all at that point, so they need to have that type of flexibility. It is important to recognize that.

All one has to do is go through the numbers. I went through that. I said that of the total number of people who have maxed out their TFSAs, 60% earned less than $60,000. That is $5,500 per year they have been putting in maxing out their TFSAs. There are lots of other opportunities for investments for some of his friends, I guess, who are in that $200,000-plus club, but they will not be using a TFSA as their main instrument for investment.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Consular]

Mr. Speaker, many of us have come here on a commitment of fiscal management and we want to see government balance its books. It is important to us that the amount of income coming to the government is what it spends. I just want to take a minute and ask this for the member for Red Deer.

The member had outlined that our government achieved a balanced budget using a very different method from the one the previous Liberal government used. I wonder if he could explain a bit further what he meant by that.

In light of the comments of the Liberal member opposite here, I think the Liberals really have a hard time accepting the fact that they should allow Canadians to save their own money and spend their own money. They seem to want to claw that back from them. Does the member know anything about Liberal clawbacks and their trying to claw money back from Canadians?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, sadly I know a lot of that, after having been a hospital board member and chairman for a number of years, back in the 1990s when the money was ripped out of the provincial coffers for social programs, as well as for health care. It was masterfully done, though, because if we ever listen to anybody at this point in time, they will say, “Remember how Ralph Klein destroyed the health care in Alberta”. It is not true. The dollars were taken away from the province by the Liberal government, and this is an issue that can never be let go.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-59 today, the Conservatives' latest omnibus budget bill.

Bill C-59 comes from an old tired government that has completely lost touch with Canadians.

It is clear that today, as I share my time with the member for Ottawa—Vanier, we both agree that the government has to do more to create jobs and growth.

This morning we received yet another reminder of that. Thousands of workers—in fact, 1,500—at Bombardier in Montreal and Toronto are to be let go. This is not an isolated incident. It is part of a long-term trend of stagnant economic growth and a flatlined labour market.

In fact, we have 169,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians today than in 2008. We have twice the number of long-term unemployed in Canada, the people who are unemployed for over a year. In fact, in my riding and part of the riding next door, Kings County, Hants County, and Annapolis County, in that Stats Canada catchment area, unemployment has gone from 4.8% in 2008 to 11.6% today. There are 10,000 fewer jobs in Kings County, Hants County, and Annapolis County than in 2008.

Too many Canadians have been laid off or face having to replace full-time work with part-time jobs. This legislation does next to nothing to help those Canadians. Canada needs a government with a plan to help create jobs and growth. The Canadian economy has not just stalled; it is in reverse. According to Stats Canada, our economy has actually been shrinking in 2015.

Unfortunately, this legislation does not have a plan for jobs and growth and does not do anything to strengthen Canada's struggling middle class. Instead, the Conservatives have bundled together a large number of unrelated measures that simply do not belong in a budget bill. I would like to give a few examples.

Bill C-59 makes retroactive changes to exempt long gun registry data from Canada's information and privacy laws. That seems like an odd provision in a budget bill. What is more worrisome is that this morning the Information Commissioner revealed the real reason behind this, that she has recommended laying charges against the RCMP, almost two months ago, for withholding and destroying data in the gun registry.

Apparently the RCMP jumped the gun and destroyed the data while legislation to repeal the registry was still before Parliament. That shows a shocking disregard for Parliament, but it is also against the law.

How did the Conservative government react? Richard Nixon would have been proud of the Prime Minister. Instead of listening to the Information Commissioner and laying charges, the Conservatives decided to retroactively rewrite the law. They are using Bill C-59 to go back in time and to make legal what was illegal. In the words of the Information Commissioner, Bill C-59 “sets a perilous precedent against Canadians' quasi-constitutional right to know”.

Bill C-59 also includes other measures that have no business being in a budget bill. It introduces new rules on the use of secret evidence in court as well as the use of biometric information in immigration applications. It establishes the parliamentary protective service and new security force on Parliament Hill. It makes piecemeal changes to the Copyright Act. None of these items belong in a budget bill. None of them have to do with the fiscal framework of the country.

The Conservatives have bundled them together in a single bill in order to limit scrutiny and ram these measures through Parliament in a matter of weeks. The process is sloppy. It leads to mistakes, and inevitably with the government, it will use another omnibus bill to correct the errors from the last omnibus bill. It is a never-ending cycle of Conservative incompetence and disrespect for Parliament.

One example is in the area of income splitting. Bill C-59 includes the Conservatives' fourth attempt at passing the correct income-splitting rules. Canadians already know that this income-splitting scheme is unnecessarily complex. Now we have to follow an 85-step process just to apply.

Now it turns out that the process is so confusing that even the tax experts writing the rules got them wrong the first three times they came to Parliament. On Monday night, a finance official admitted that there is an error in the income-splitting rules.

The Conservatives made a mistake that is shortchanging some families by as much as $750 on their 2014 tax return. It is affecting Canadian families that qualify for both income splitting and the tuition, education, and textbook tax credits.

This error was in the ways and means motion that the House of Commons passed last November. It was there again in the ways and means motion that the House passed on March 25. It showed up a third time in Bill C-57.

This budget bill represents the Conservative government's fourth attempt to get it right. This is the Conservatives' flagship policy. Income splitting is not just unnecessarily complex; it is also unfair, unreliable, and bad for growth. It is unfair because it excludes 85% of Canadian households from any benefit whatsoever. It does nothing to help some of Canada's most vulnerable parents, single parents, or low-income families.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer issued a report showing that high-income families are far more likely to qualify for income-splitting benefits. In fact, families in the top quintile of income are the most likely to qualify. The PBO's report also shows that the average benefits under income splitting rise with family income. Families earning at least $180,000 per year get the highest average benefit. Yet these are exactly the people who need the help the least.

Income splitting is also unreliable. Just because people qualify for it one year does not mean they will benefit the next. The benefit can vanish whenever circumstances change. For example, a family can become disqualified when primary earners lose their job or see their pay drop.

Finally, the PBO has shown that it would actually weaken Canada's economic growth rather than strengthen it. The PBO estimates that income splitting will lead to the equivalent of 7,000 fewer full-time jobs in the Canadian economy.

The Liberals, and the Liberal Party of Canada, have a plan that is fair, simple, and good for the economy. We would replace the Conservatives' income-splitting scheme and a complex array of benefits with a single tax-free monthly cheque that is easier to receive and means more money in the pockets of low- and middle-income families.

Under the Liberal plan for fairness, a typical two-parent family with two children, earning $90,000 per year would receive $490 every month, tax free. That is $2,500 more per year than under the current Conservative plan. A Liberal government would also make the tax system fairer and cut the middle class tax rate by 7%. That is a $3 billion tax cut for those who need it the most.

We would ask the wealthiest Canadians to help, to pay a little more so the middle class can pay less. Canada's middle-class families are tapped out. They are struggling to make ends meet. They have not had a pay raise or a real tax cut to benefit their families in a long time.

Fairness means giving more to the middle class and those working hard to join it. The Conservatives, on the other hand, are only helping those who need the help the least.

Canadians now have two fundamentally different choices. The Conservatives offer tax breaks to the wealthy. We, as Liberals, believe in a country that works for everyone. We believe we can do more for those who need it the most by doing a little less for those who do not need the help.

The Conservatives are out of touch with the challenges faced by middle-class families. They are out of ideas on how to strengthen the economy. Canadians know it is time for change. It is time for a Liberal government with a plan for fairness for Canada's middle class. We will present to Canadians a plan for jobs and growth, investing in infrastructure, investing in people and skills for the jobs of today and the jobs of tomorrow.

Our priority is clear, we must strengthen those at the heart of our economy, middle-class Canadians who have not had a decent raise in 30 years. We cannot have a sustained long-term economic recovery without a strong middle class.

Liberals will continue to present solutions to grow our economy and to help Canada's struggling middle class. We will give Canadians a real choice for hope for a better future and a plan to actually lead us to that future in October when Canadians have an opportunity to choose a better government.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a little bit rich of the member to say that Canadians want a change and that they want to go back to a Liberal government. We know what the Liberals did when they were in government. We just have to look at all of the spending problems and the sponsorship, which is really not much different from what the Conservative government is doing in wasting taxpayers' dollars. It is in the budget. The Conservatives are increasing their expenses for advertising. That is quite problematic.

What is even more problematic is the fact that the Liberals, like the Conservatives, would put in a tax plan that would only benefit a certain portion of Canadians. Under the Liberal tax plan, somebody who makes $45,000 would get a total of $4.49, while someone making $150,000 would get $670.

I am just wondering if the member can tell me how fair that really is.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I urge the hon. member in her spare time to go to www.liberal.ca. It is our Liberal Party website. If she looks at the Liberal plan for fairness, she will see that a family with two children making a total income of $45,000 per year would receive $4,000 more every single year than they are receiving from the Conservative government right now.

I am not certain on what planet she is spending most of her time, but here on earth and here in Canada, $4,000 for a family making $45,000 a year with two children is a big benefit. I would urge her not just to rely on the NDP talking points, but to go to the source, the Liberal website, where she can see that we have a plan that would benefit low- and middle-income families.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, before I pose my question, I would like to make a comment to the NDP member. One has to be very careful if one throws stones in glass houses. After all, I suspect that more than 50% of her current caucus has allegedly spent tax dollars illegally, which is a very serious offence.

My question for the Liberal member is related to a statement that the leader of the Liberal Party has made in all regions of Canada. He said how important it is that we invest in our middle class, because by investing in our middle class, we are investing in our economy, and a healthy middle class means a healthy economy.

I wonder if the Liberal Party critic could pick up on that point and add some thoughts.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague from Winnipeg North. We do not hear from him enough in the House, so it is wonderful to hear his mellifluous voice.

It is an important question. The reality is that the leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Papineau, has, over the last three years, focused on Canada's middle class. He has made the challenges faced by Canada's middle class an important issue for debate as we lead up to an election. He was the one who put these issues on the radar of Canadian politics. He is also the first leader to actually present a real plan to help Canada's middle class.

By cutting middle-class taxes, by helping middle-class families with children, we are the only party that has a real plan for fairness and a real plan for jobs and growth. Helping the middle class is one of the best ways to create economic growth. Without a robust middle class, we cannot have a sustained economic recovery or a strong economy.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the question I have has to do with balancing the books and eliminating the deficit. The reason I am asking is because this is important to Canadians. As MPs, we are asking Canadians to balance their books. They want to see the government balance its books.

The Liberal track record is not a good track record. Just have a look at the Province of Ontario, and I think we will see how challenging it is for a Liberal government to balance the books.

I would like to ask the member if the Liberal Party will commit to having a zero deficit in its budgets, particularly when it is talking about delivering so-called benefits to Canadians. Will it maintain a balanced budget?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the previous Liberal government actually eliminated a $43-billion deficit, paid down around $60 billion off the national debt. When the Conservatives took power, they inherited the best fiscal situation of any incoming government in the history of Canada: a $13-billion surplus. Within less than two years, by the fall of 2008, they had not only spent through that surplus, Canada was actually at the edge of deficit even before the financial crisis, but since then, they have actually added $120 billion to the national debt.

My leader has committed to a fully costed election platform that will have balanced budgets, and we will honour that as a—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to rise today to debate a particular section of Bill C-59, section 20, which deals with the sick leave and disability programs that the government wishes to impose upon the federal public service. This is nothing new.

Here is a passage from the October 2013 throne speech, in which the federal government announced, and I quote:

It will reform disability and sick-day entitlements and work with employees to get them back to work as soon as possible.

That almost implies that employees are absent not because they are sick, but because they can take sick leave. Before talking about Bill C-59, I would like to talk about a bill that was passed not long after the 2013 Speech from the Throne, and that is Bill C-4.

Bill C-4, which I had called at the time a rather explosive bill, indeed, exploded the relationship between our federal public service and the Government of Canada, in a number of ways. It changed legislation that governed the federal public service and, also, the workers who fell under the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada, through the Canada Labour Code, in a number of ways. I will mention three.

The government gave itself the ability to define “essential services” in a way that had not existed before. It was, before the adoption of Bill C-4, a mechanism where both parties, the employer and the employees, could present their arguments and the body that rendered the decision was a rather respected one. However, this law now, essentially, gives the authority entirely to the government.

The other thing is that the unions will no longer have the right to arbitration, which was a very important tool that has been used repeatedly over the past decades. However, now, arbitration would be an option only if 80% of the members do a job that is considered essential. The government has given itself the right to very easily control the union's ability to use arbitration by taking away the essential right to the renegotiation tool that works well when the parties cannot come to an agreement.

If the unions manage to win the right to an arbitration, the government had also changed the conditions that arbitrators can use. They can only refer to the government's financial situation or recruitment and retention issues in the public service, nothing else. That was not the case before.

Finally, the arbitration boards will no longer be independent. Basically, they report to the government.

In addition, there is another matter that I should mention. The definition of “danger” is changing, which would affect not only the 200,000-plus core public servants, but also the 800,000 other employees in Canada who fall under the Canada Labour Code, and the minister, or one of his delegates, is now responsible for defining “danger”. That sets us back at least 50 years. Given the tremendous progress we have made, regarding the rights of unionized workers in our country, I believe, now, that the public service and the workers governed by the Canada Labour Code are less well-served.

Back, now, to Bill C-59.

I wrote a blog on October 15, 2014, and I will quote it now.

[The President of the Treasury Board] has now proposed replacing the current system of banked sick leave with a new short-term disability plan and has warned that annual sick leave may be limited to five days a year [he has now offered six], which is a draconian cut from the 15 days currently allowed through negotiated collective agreements. Paid sick leave is not a perk that can be given or taken away at the discretion of the employer, but a contractual benefit of employment negotiated over time and representing, along with salary and other forms of leave, the mutually agreed worth of the work provided by employees.

A Treasury Board report has warned of a heavy fiscal liability that the government’s obligation to provide sick leave apparently represents, but the report is mistaken or misleading in several respects. To start with, a theoretical liability is meaningless when a great number of public servants do not use all their sick leave entitlements. Furthermore, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) has noted that the so-called liability includes work-related injuries and unpaid sick leave which are not relevant to the current discussion and negotiation. The PBO has also argued that the incremental costs of paid sick leave are minimal when departments do not backfill sick employees, which is the case with most departments and agencies. Finally, numbers are skewed when individual sick leave days are placed in the same basket as the forced draining of an employee’s banked sick leave immediately prior to long term disability.

The current system serves an important purpose: workers should not be going to work sick as this would impede their own recovery and may put co-workers—or the public—at risk of illness as well. We should be promoting healthy workplaces.

Let us hope that this situation will be resolved by good faith negotiation and not by another piece of legislation embedded in yet another omnibus bill.

That is the end of my blog entry from October 2014. Unfortunately, that is exactly where we are now. Bill C-59 basically contains a measure giving the President of the Treasury Board the power to do whatever he wants, regardless of existing laws.

This morning we saw a headline in the Ottawa Citizen that made mention of the fact that the President of the Treasury Board is pressuring unions for a sick leave deal by the fall. In Bill C-4, the government established and tilted in its favour the capacity to negotiate, or dictate really, to the public servants of our country. Now, in Bill C-59, we are seeing a provision that would give the President of the Treasury Board the ability to dictate, when he wants, measures that have not been negotiated and that I do not believe would result in agreement. In the budget that was adopted in this House, the government and one of the ministers said that it is cast in stone, is expecting to recover $900 million worth of benefits this year from the sick leave program that our public servants benefit from. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, we have a situation here that is not appropriate.

We should also note some numbers. Of the core public service staff, 25% have fewer than 10 days of banked sick leave, and 60% do not have enough banked days to bridge the gap to disability. Federal public servants currently have 15 days per year and can carry unused days over, which the government wants to stop, however the banked days are forfeited upon retirement. If there is abuse or if conditions need to be changed, five of the largest unions have been negotiating with Treasury Board since last June, apparently there are now 18, and have indicated a willingness to correct measures that may not be as solid as they should be. However, for the government to dictate that we will go from 15 to 6 days, non-accumulative, is not appropriate. That would create a situation in our public service that would not favour the service to the public.

In the past we have had a very solid relationship with our federal public service. Starting in the 60s when the prime minister at the time, Mr. Pearson, recognized the right to strike, and until 1984, 41% of our employees in Canada were unionized. That has now dropped back. In that period of time we had a great compression of the inequalities among the salaries of people. Since then it has been increasing. That is a serious difficulty that not just I but the World Economic Forum has identified as the world's single largest problem. The way we are dealing with our federal public service will not help solve that at all. It is a sad way for us to go, and I would hope that we would consider going in another direction rather than in this one.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear my colleague speak up for unions. They are important and, as he mentioned, they help us with disparities. Unions allow people to have wages bargained in a way that is representative of their work, and allow employers to also accommodate and put forward their issues. I would hope his party will continue to support unions, and that means e on Parliament Hill when unions are able to have collective bargaining with their employers, say with the NDP caucus in affording its members the spaces they need to do their work, but that is for another day perhaps.

I want to circle one of the issues the member mentioned, which is very important, particularly for those of us who represent public servants.

What is so wrong with this budget is that it builds on the government's track record to torque the power relationship between the employer and the employees, in other words, the government and public servants. That was in Bill C-4, as the member mentioned, which we opposed. However, in this bill, the Conservatives, instead of sitting down and saying that they are going to look at modernizing, in this case, sick leave, that they are going to look at the different changes in the workplace, knowing different things happen in the workplace, they have circled a number and have said that is it, that is all, that now it will sit down and negotiate. This is troublesome. It not only is bad faith bargaining, because the Conservatives have already come to a conclusion before they have sat down at the table, but they are talking about things that have already been agreed to.

Could the member comment on the change in the relationship between the employer and employees and what that does to the workplace, in other words, the place in which people do the work to provide services to Canadians?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the government, in the House and in cabinet, and I have always thought that one of the principle responsibilities of a government as an employer is to deal in good faith and straight up with the unions. I have interfered and intervened a number of times to ensure that our government would indeed behave in that way. I believe that fundamentally. That has provided us with a very strong federal public service, one that has served the Canadian public very well.

However, over the last few years, as my colleague for Ottawa Centre said, the government has tended to torque the relationship in a way that is not fair and is not appropriate as far as I am concerned, and it has to be corrected.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated very much the tone of my colleague's comments, because he very much reached out to the government to indicate that there were some serious concerns with this budget when it came to our public service.

The fact that the government has already decided on the amount as far as requirements for the various workers, I would be interested to hear what my colleague has to say about what happens if we do not achieve the goal the government has set aside in the budget for those kinds of negotiations. Does that mean workers will end up on strike, whether they want to or not, and the government will simply say that it does not have anymore money because it budgeted x amount of dollars?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not clear what the government intends to do. One may believe that the government is hoping to basically abolish all of the banked days that the public servants have accumulated, and that is where it may recover its $900 million. However, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated, those numbers are not accurate and not relevant.

If indeed public servants are sick and they use a sick day, there is no cost to the government if they are not replaced, which is essentially the way most departments and agencies function. We have enough in the federal public service to fill in when someone is sick, which is why the PBO has essentially said that the report that the Treasury Board has based its position on is essentially erroneous, which is a generous way of putting it, and therefore should not be relied upon.

I am not too sure what the Conservatives want to do, but I do know that the way they are approaching negotiations is not in good faith and therefore not appropriate, and that has to change.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to discuss the 2015 economic action plan—a plan that is tailor-made to meet the needs of hard-working families in Orléans and across Canada.

Before I go forward, I would like to advise that I will be sharing my time with the dedicated member for Lethbridge.

This budget is prudent, reasonable, responsible and, most of all, it gives middle-class families some breathing room.

A balanced budget is the best way to protect public service jobs and the programs that are so important to Canadians.

Canada was the last country to fall into the worst recession since the Great Depression and it was the first country to recover from it. We now have our first balanced budget since that financial crisis.

Thanks to the brilliant work of the late Jim Flaherty, the current Minister of Finance and their economic teams, we have gone from a deficit of $55.6 billion at the depth of the great recession, to an estimated surplus for this year of $1.4 billion. Canada no longer has to use its credit card to cover its bills. This new state of affairs will increase investor confidence in Canada's economic potential.

The future is bright for the best country in the world. More than 1.2 million net new jobs have been created in Canada since the lowest point of the recession.

More than 80% of these are full-time, private-sector jobs and more than half are in high-paying sectors of the economy. The budget is also proof that the city of Ottawa can depend on solid federal support.

Since 2006, we have invested more than $1 billion in close to 100 infrastructure projects in the capital. More than $760 million has gone to phase one of the light rail transit project, $600 million of which came from the building Canada plan and more than $170 million from the federal gas tax fund. Close to $100 million have been invested in the three-phase Ottawa River action plan, a moral issue for the region's environment.

A total of $110 million has been earmarked to renovate the National Arts Centre.

More than $80 million has been allocated to the Canada Science and Technology Museum to upgrade the facility and keep it in east end Ottawa.

Fully $50 million has been invested in building the Ottawa Congress Centre.

Furthermore, the government's decision to extend, double, index and permanently establish the federal tax fund means that the city of Ottawa can benefit from more than $50 million per year for its projects.

These are outstanding results, but you can be assured that we do not plan to rest on our laurels. The 2015 economic action plan is proof of that.

The new budget proposes an investment of $10 million over five years, starting this year, to support the Ottawa Police Service.

This initiative reflects the overall nature of the budget: prudent, reasonable and responsible.

Given the federal presence in Ottawa, the municipal police service has responsibilities that other forces do not, for example, helping to provide security around embassies. We agreed in 2008 that the federal government should provide stable funding rather than reimburse expenses on a case-by-case basis. All parties have benefited from the agreement.

We are very pleased to renew this agreement and continue to assist our Ottawa police force.

Everyone in the region and around the world was saddened by the events of October 22 that took the life of the late Corporal Nathan Cirillo. Once again, the government exhibited discretion and some judgment by significantly improving security, while not turning Parliament Hill into an armed fortress. In addition, the government plans to allocate more than $60 million over three years to tighten security on the Hill.

This funding will enhance security not only for parliamentarians but also for the people who work on the Hill and the many visitors and tourists who come here.

Not a week goes by without someone telling me how excited he or she is about the celebrations to mark Canada's sesquicentennial. Whether I am at the Royal Canadian Legion in Orléans, the friendliest legion in the region, or the Carlsbad Springs Community Centre, the wise people of Ottawa—Orléans want to talk about the this upcoming event.

As an aside, I would like to take a moment to congratulate the recently retired city councillor, Rainer Bloess, for his work as co-chair of Ottawa 2017.

Residents of the National Capital Region and people across the country welcomed our plan to invest $210 million over four years to support Canada's 150th anniversary.

Yes, 150 years is worth celebrating!

When the good people of Orléans first elected me to serve them in this House, and it was 3,399 days ago, I chose to make autism my personal cause.

On my recommendation, the Société franco-ontarienne de l'autisme has received close to $1 million in funding since 2006 through Canada Summer Jobs.

Thanks to this program, the agency will be able to hire 36 students this summer.

Naturally, I hoped that the 2015 economic action plan would give additional support to these vulnerable members of our society.

Through the teamwork of some 50 government MPs, we convinced the Minister of Finance to include $2 million in funding to create a working group in partnership with the Canadian Autism Spectrum Disorder Alliance.

Of this amount, $1.5 million will go to support stakeholder participation in the working group.

The group will develop a plan for a Canadian autism partnership that will address three key areas: sharing information and research; early identification, diagnosis and treatment; and to support families.

This initiative is very promising and it marks the start of what I hope will be a great future.

My time is running out and I would like to conclude by talking about our decision to support families. I have always supported income splitting for families.

In most families, the wage earners pool their incomes. Canada's tax system must reflect this reality.

As a result of actions taken by the government since 2006, a typical four-person family will receive increased benefits of up to $6,600 following the adoption of the 2015 economic action plan.

Once again, the opposition is crying foul and saying that these measures will only help the rich.

However, this initiative will support middle-class and lower-middle-class families.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 68% of the people benefiting from this tax relief have a family income of $120,000 or less. That is more than two-thirds of households!

The Parliamentary Budget Officer also noted that 17% of households would benefit from income splitting having a family income of less than $60,000.

If I had more time, I would talk about our other progressive proposals, such as reducing the amount of mandatory withdrawals from registered retired income funds, tax cuts for small businesses and greater support for caregivers, but I will have to leave that for another time. For today, I am just satisfied to give the facts instead of the ideology.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker I would like to thank the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans for his desperate attempt to sing the praises of this tired, worn-out government. We are going to talk about real issues instead.

Earlier I asked one of his Conservative colleagues about the opinions of two renowned and credible tax experts who write a column in Les Affaires, a newspaper my colleague certainly knows. Both experts warned people about the Conservative measures, including the universal child care benefit, which they said was just smoke and mirrors in the end.

I am lucky to have my constituency office right next to the office of a tax accountant who has just finished the busy tax return season. He said he was going to recommend that his daughter not spend her lovely July gift cheque, because she will have to write a big cheque to the taxman next spring.

I wonder if the hon. member would be making the same recommendation to his four children.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think this kind of sociological debate intended to divide Canadians is really regrettable.

The economic plan we presented this year will be good for all families, especially those with a low or average income.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member is aware of the Minister of Finance's significant blunder, as many would call it, immediately following the release of his budget, when talking about the TFSA and realizing that there were going to be future revenue shortfalls for the government. This is where the government wants to give a significant benefit to some of Canada's wealthiest over others. The Minister of Finance responded by saying that this was, in essence, going to be a problem that the Prime Minister's granddaughter is going to have to deal with.

I wonder if the member could provide some comment on whether or not the government should take its responsibility more seriously about future generations, for whom we are supposed to be providing support.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are taking a very reasonable approach, combined with everything else we have done since 2006. After the approval of this budget, the average four-person family would have a reduction in taxes of $6,600.

We are doing it in a very safe way, not like the party he belongs to, which in 1995 cut as many as 40,000 bureaucrats from the public service and cut federal health care transfers to provinces from 50¢ on the dollar, which had been held for 30 years, from 1965 to 1995, to 14¢ on the dollar, with unbelievable consequences to health care services across the country.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's excellent speech. It was well balanced and made me think about the very fact that we have balanced the budget. In a day and age when governments seem to get deeper and deeper into the mire of spending and doing the very opposite of balancing budgets, our government has managed to not only do that but to give money back to families so they can balance their budgets.

I wonder if the member, who spoke so eloquently, could possibly tell us what consequences of the reckless behaviour and challenges we would face as a nation, should we begin to reverse that and start to spend money so that our budgets would no longer be balanced. I wonder if he could just tell us what the consequences of those reckless actions would be.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans, a short response, please.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the shortest response is that Canadian families right across the country know that budgets do not balance themselves. There is one fellow who thinks they do. He sits in the corner over there, and that is probably where he is going to stay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina, Infrastructure; the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior-North, National Defence; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Justice.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in April we introduced economic action plan 2015, this year's federal budget. As we promised in the 2011 election, we have balanced the budget. In fact, we have a $1.4 billion surplus. We have also kept our commitment to balance the budget without raising taxes and without cutting transfer payments to our most cherished social programs like health care. Not only have we not raised taxes, but we have cut taxes and provided even more tax incentives for individuals, families, and businesses.

In fact, this budget builds on measures introduced since we first formed government, providing a typical two-income family of four tax relief and increased benefits of up to $6,600 more than in 2006. The 2015 budget has been praised by a broad and diverse group of business experts, economists, entrepreneurs, and most importantly, ordinary Canadians.

This budget is family-friendly and sensitive to seniors' needs. It addresses students' concerns. It is pro-business, the economy's job creators, and supportive of our veterans and Canadian Armed Forces. It supports communities through significant infrastructure investments and it is designed to create jobs, spur economic growth, and ensure long-term prosperity for all Canadians while ensuring future generations.

Our Conservative government remains focused on what matters most to Canadians. Our priorities are and will remain jobs and economic growth. We are keeping taxes low and supporting families. We are investing in infrastructure and helping to create jobs, while keeping to our plan to return to a balanced budget.

This year's budget is a balanced budget. We have taken steps to control expenditures without reducing transfers to individuals or the provinces. We cannot say as much for the opposition parties. The Liberals, for example, are offering nothing of substance in terms of the economy or job creation. Their leader has no plan for balancing the budget.

In fact, what is even more disturbing is that the Liberal leader said that the budget would balance itself. Even with the tax increases he proposes, his plan leaves a $2 billion gap that can only be closed by increasing the debt and creating new taxes.

The NDP does not offer any more hope. It continues to defend risky economic schemes and unwise spending. It is proposing a total of over $56 billion in new, imprudent spending, which would increase the tax burden and plunge Canada into permanent deficit.

Providing real support to Canadian families is an important responsibility for our Conservative government. Our economic prosperity plan is a plan for lower taxes, which puts money back into the pockets of hard-working Canadians.

We are proud of our solid record of tax relief, a record that reduces the federal tax burden to its lowest level in a generation. We have implemented unprecedented tax-saving initiatives, such as cutting the GST to 5% and introducing the tax-free savings account, thereby reducing the tax burden of all Canadians.

Furthermore, the latest tax relief measures for families taken by our government will help make life more affordable for all Canadian families with children. Our Conservative government has improved and expanded the universal child care benefit. This reduces the cost of child care still further, while enabling parents to choose the type of child care that best suits their family.

We have increased the benefits to $1,920 per year for each child under the age of six and we are introducing a new benefit of $720 per year for children between the ages of six and 17. This is in addition to the $1,000 more each year that families can claim under the child care expense deduction.

In addition, we are helping more families enrol their children in sporting activities by doubling the children’s fitness tax credit and making it refundable.

Moreover, the government has established the historic family tax cut, which allows couples to transfer up to $50,000 of taxable income to the spouse who is in a lower income tax bracket.

This reduces the income tax they would have to pay by up to $2,000. The family tax cut helps make our income tax system fairer by ensuring that families with the same earning power do not pay completely different amounts of income tax.

We hear a lot about the injustice of income splitting, that it is only going to help a very small portion of the population, and that it is only going to help the rich. Nothing could be further from the truth. I grew up in a family of 14 kids. My dad was a school teacher, my mom was a stay-at-home mom, and income splitting would have helped my family.

That is not just a rare exception to the rule. Every single family on my block would have benefited from this. Almost every single family in my community would have benefited from this. None of us were rich. The only few families who would not have benefited from this were the families who were not paying taxes anyway because they were in a low income tax bracket or a non-existent tax bracket, which is a sad place to be, but their taxes could not be reduced if they were not paying any taxes.

We also do not claim that this one measure would solve all the world's problems. I am going to give a bit of a metaphor as a critique of our measures. Suppose that every day 10 men go out for a root beer and the bill for all 10 comes to $100. If they paid their bill according to the way we pay taxes, it would go something like this: the first four are the poorest and they would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh would pay $7; the eighth would pay $12; the ninth would pay $18; and the tenth man, who is the richest, would pay $59. He has the easiest ability to do so, so that is what they decide to do.

The 10 men drink their root beer every day and seem quite happy with the arrangement, until one day the owner of the bar threw them a curve ball. He said that they were such good customers and that he did not want them to leave, so he was going to reduce the cost of their daily root beer by $20. Drinks for the 10 men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, because that is fair. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink root beer for free. What about the other six men? How could they divide the $20 windfall? If they divide the $20 by six, it is $3.33, but if they subtract $3.33 from everybody's bill, the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his root beer. That did not seem fair either.

So, the bartender suggested reducing each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer that man was, following the principle of our fair tax system. They worked it out so that the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing; the sixth would now paid $2 instead of $3, a 33% savings; the seventh would pay $5 instead of $7, a 28% savings; the eighth would pay $9 instead of $12, a 25% saving; the ninth would pay $14 instead of $18, which is a 22% saving; and the tenth now paid $49 instead of $59.

Now, each of the six who had been paying was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free. However, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. Then along came a guy who had grown up with a silver mug. He pointed out that the sixth man only got a dollar out of the $20 saving; he then pointed to the tenth man and said that he got $10 in savings. The fifth man exclaimed that he only saved a $1 too, and that it was unfair because the tenth man got 10 times more benefit than he did. The seventh man shouted that it was true and asked why the tenth should get $10 back, when he himself had only gotten $2, and that the wealthy get all the breaks.

The man with the silver mug hollered that they should not forget that the first four guys did not get anything at all—and remember, they had been getting free root beer all along—that the new tax system exploits the poor, and that the guys should reject the $20 discount because it was nothing but a giveaway for the richest guys in the group.

They ganged up on the tenth guy and shamed him for being so selfish and for taking their money, so he quit going to the root beer get-together every night. When they went back the next day, there were only nine there. They found out when paying the amount they had to pay that they only had half the amount of money that they owed for the root beer.

The man with the silver mug said that they would have to pay back their discount, and their price would be raised by 7%. They were still $37 short, so he would cut the root beer in half and find another way.

That is the injustice we are talking about. Our budget is good, it is fair, and it helps all Canadian families.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague for taking such efforts with his French. It is appreciated. Frankly, it might have been better if he had continued in French rather than getting stuck in rambling, open-ended allegory.

In any case, in his speech, I did not hear him explain to Canadian families why his government is establishing a new tax by making the universal child care benefit taxable, that is, considering it taxable income. The Conservatives boast about helping all families and putting more money in their pockets, but at year-end, they will be taking back almost half of it. Financial experts have recommended that Canadians set aside most of the universal child care benefit in order to cover any unpleasant surprises they get when they file their income tax return next year.

I would like to know why the government, in addition to real universal child care benefits, is not trying to create affordable day care spaces in order to give parents a real choice, as the NDP has proposed?

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny to hear the NDP say that our tax deduction is not high enough.

The member from the NDP is saying the tax deduction is not high enough. It is a little bit of a disingenuous criticism to say we should not be giving this benefit at all, but now that we are, we should give it all without it being taxed.

People are used to paying taxes at the end of the year. I would prefer nothing to be taxed, but it cannot be that way. The fact that it is taxed at the end of the year would also make it fairer, since the people with higher incomes end up getting slightly less benefit than those with the lower income because their tax brackets are higher. I am not quite sure what they are complaining about.

I know what the people who are Conservatives are complaining about: they would rather not be taxed at all. However, we cannot get everything we want just yet.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thought it was an interesting example. It would be interesting to see the member explain that example as he goes door-knocking, that is for sure.

To get right down to the basics, the government's income-splitting proposal would apply to less than 15% of the population. Even the government members, the Minister of Finance, and representatives of the government have acknowledged that less than 15% of Canadians would benefit from it. That 15% is predominantly some of Canada's wealthiest, and no matter what sort of example we come up with, that is the reality of it.

That commitment alone amounts to a loss of $2 billion in taxes in a year. It seems to me there is a much better way. Would the member not agree that a 7% tax relief for Canada's middle class would be a fairer way of administering a tax break here in Canada?

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, income splitting is long overdue. It addresses an injustice that has been around for a long time. Undoing an injustice does not solve every injustice in the world, but that does not mean we should not address that injustice.

Income splitting acknowledges the real benefit and value that stay-at-home parents provide to their families and to society as a whole. It acknowledges the real value of spouses who do not make as much as the person to whom they are married. It acknowledges what they contribute to their family and to society in a non-financial way.

I would not have trouble explaining this measure door to door because people already understand that it is a just offer and a just principle. They are confused about the notion that it really does not help. They know it helps. They are the ones who would benefit from it. I would not have to explain that for very long.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and speak for a few moments on Bill C-59. Let me indicate that I will be sharing my time with the wonderful, hard-working member of Parliament for Beauport—Limoilou. I am pleased to have that opportunity.

Bill C-59 is a bill that I cannot accept. I will be opposing Bill C-59 for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it will implement the unfair tax scheme that the government introduced in its budget to transfer money to the wealthiest 15% of Canadians in the country. I refer, of course, to income splitting and increasing the TFSA.

A number of my colleagues have been talking about these issues in some detail. Since we only have ten minutes, I want to talk a little bit today about a couple of issues that I found particularly noteworthy and that would have an impact on people in my constituency. I will set it up as the good, the bad, and the missing. I will proceed to explain why.

Let me first of all say that the practice of omnibus bills that was introduced by the Liberals has really been put on steroids by the Conservatives. This bill is over 150 pages long. It deals with more than 270 clauses. It would amend dozens of acts, many of which are not within 100 miles of the budget. This kind of bill undermines the ability of MPs to do what it is that we were sent here to do, which is to scrutinize legislation.

Let me talk for a moment about something that I think is good in this bill. A couple of days ago it was called Bill C-58.

The government put Bill C-58, dealing with veterans, directly into this bill, and I will speak to that in a second. I supported Bill C-58, as it was known, because it would have improved the transition process for Canadian Forces members and veterans moving into civilian life. It would have established the retirement income security benefit to provide eligible veterans and survivors with a continued financial benefit after the age of 65 years. It would have established the critical injury benefit to provide eligible Canadian Forces members and veterans with lump sum compensation for severe, sudden, and traumatic injuries or acute diseases that were service-related, regardless of whether they result in permanent disability. It would have established the family caregiver relief benefit to provide eligible veterans who require a high level of ongoing care from an informal caregiver with an annual grant to recognize that caregiver's support.

I mention this in particular because my colleague and neighbouring MP, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, has been fighting tirelessly on behalf of veterans and spoke the other day in support of these changes for veterans. The Minister of Veterans Affairs actually accused that member of trying to hold up these changes and delay the implementation of Bill C-58. That is why he stuck it into the middle of this omnibus bill.

What is interesting, though, as has been explained by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, is that if the Conservatives had left Bill C-58 as a stand-alone piece of legislation, it would have been in committee today. It would have been dealt with, it would have been reported back by the end of this month, and it would have been ready to be put into law by the end of May or the early part of June.

However, as a result of sticking it into this omnibus bill, it is going to be at least the end of June before this legislation will be completed. In other words, belying his words, the minister is himself intentionally delaying these provisions, and that is something I am completely opposed to. I must say I expected better from the minister than misrepresenting the position of my colleague, an articulate and hard-working advocate on behalf of veterans.

I also want to commend the government for agreeing with a position that the New Democratic Party has taken for many years, something proposed in its platform of 2011, which was to extend the compassionate care benefits for Canadians caring for loved ones. In our 2011 budget proposal, New Democrats talked about moving that out to six months. It is extremely important.

That was in the NDP platform in 2011, before the government introduced changes that denied eligibility to Canadians and placed constraints on which Canadians would be eligible for this benefit. While New Democrats agree with extending it, we face the same problem that exists with the EI benefit program in its entirety, and that is access.

Let me refer to a couple of points that were made by a representative from the Canadian Alliance of United Seniors on this particular issue. He stated:

Extending this program is a good idea, but there still are some major problems with this initiative. The first problem is the fact that the measure can be used only for caring for a terminally ill person dying within six months. This is not good enough as many persons, who are very ill, are not diagnosed as terminally ill in this short time frame, but could still use important care. As well, many persons who are the potential caregivers are not working or are self-employed, and thus will not have access to any funds through this program. So while a good improvement, this program needs more work, because as the population ages....

While there may be a slight increase in costs if we were to deal with the access issues, it is certainly a much more effective way of providing care than the options.

I also want to say that I have talked to constituents who have made representations to me on behalf of ALS Canada and would like to be included in this benefit through a change in the wording to include those who are in “significant need of caregiving because of terminal illness”. It is too bad that was not part of this change.

Among the things that were particularly noteworthy on the negative side is what the government has done with respect to public sector sick leave. The government is overriding its own recently redrafted Public Service Labour Relations Act and allowing Treasury Board to arbitrarily set sick leave and disability plans for employees in the federal public service. This is an affront to the ongoing collective bargaining process. It is completely wrong and it is utterly disrespectful to the whole process of collective bargaining.

I have already spoken about my concern with the government raiding the EI fund once again, just as the Liberals did, to the benefit of the wealthy few. I am also disappointed that the government did not come up with a plan for providing affordable daycare spaces, as New Democrats proposed, at $15 a day. The bill would implement the enhanced universal child care benefit. We have committed to keeping it, but we also think that affordable quality daycare spaces are necessary.

Some of the things my constituents would like to see include: develop a comprehensive strategy to deal with persistent structural youth and underemployment; immediately reverse the federal government plan to raise the retirement age for old age security and guaranteed income supplement to 67; fix the Veterans Affairs by reopening those closed offices; and start to listen to Canadians and show them some respect.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The hon. member clearly did not have enough time to say all he wanted to about this budget. There is one important point for me, and it is the whole issue of how federal employees are treated. It bothers me that the government has decided to claw back money without any negotiation. Salary, pension and sick leave are all part of the concept of a total compensation package, wherein union members accept lower salaries in exchange for valuable benefits.

I would like my colleague to say more about the unilateral cuts in total compensation for federal public service employees.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I find it not only disrespectful but counterproductive. Employees who work for the federal government work hard. They are dedicated to their jobs. They provide important services to Canadians. They are also represented by a collective agreement. In collective bargaining, the right to be represented by a union is a constitutionally-recognized right in our country. The government seems to be ignoring that. In the past, the government unilaterally increased the cost of the health benefit plan for federal public servants without any question of negotiation, without any issue of negotiations.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member. There is one aspect of the budget I would like to point out because I do not think we get to talk enough about it. I know Canadians are very much concerned about Canada's health care system. A 10-year accord was achieved with provinces and that led to record high amounts of investments in health care in all regions of our country. The government has failed to recognize the importance of having a new agreement with the provinces, which no doubt raises a great deal of concern. I share those concerns.

I know members of the Liberal caucus, and I think even members of the New Democratic caucus, would be concerned about the future of health care, given that the government has not been able to meet with the provinces, whether it be the Prime Minister or the Minister of Health, with the premiers, in a very genuine way, to try to strike a new accord which would ensure we would have ongoing health care throughout the country.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate those comments. The government unilaterally made that change in the funding formula for health care, which the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated would cost the health care system $36 billion.

My leader has made it very clear that when we are elected in October 2015, we will return to the formula that was used before. We will ensure that in provinces like mine, where the population is not increasing, but is in fact aging, changes to the formula will be made to ensure that they will not be disadvantaged. We will recognize the need for greater resources because of an aging demographic.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is very concerned about increasing taxes to pay for all the programs that his party would like to implement, but could he at least give me the assurance that, on these two measures, he would support our budget?

First, is the reduction of business taxes down to 9%. This would result in savings of over $36,000 for a company that is earning $500,000. It would be great to be able to plough that back into the company and produce greater productivity. Would he at least support that one?

If I had time, I would ask him another question.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is laughable when members on the government side talk about balanced budgets. They talk about living within one's means when we know they have run up deficits in our country at a level not seen in recent memory, to the point now where we have a debt in the country of over $140 billion.

The Conservatives have done two things: first, they have continued to spend like crazy; and second, they have cut back on our revenue sources. They simply cannot talk about being prudent with taxpayer money.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for generously sharing his precious speaking time with me.

As my Nova Scotian colleague pointed out so well, we are debating a very large omnibus bill, even though it is smaller than its predecessors. This morning, sadly, the Conservative government once again imposed closure through a time allocation motion in order to put a limit on debate. Thus, many of my colleagues who would have liked to speak on this budget implementation bill, which has many complex ramifications, will not be able to do so because they have been refused the right to speak for their constituents.

In my speech on the budget several weeks ago I attacked the finance minister's bill because it was very pretentious to try to impose a balanced budget act. It is pure comedy. I have studied the clauses relating to this balanced budget act; I have them here. I do not understand how a single Conservative member of this House can extol the merits of this part of the omnibus bill.

Had it been in force for the past seven years, the Conservative cabinet would have had to pay huge sums of money as a result of its intentional, unilateral decisions to reduce taxes on the richest and biggest businesses in our country.

The most reliable institutions estimate the shortfall caused by all the Conservative measures at tens of billions of dollars per year. It was no accident that the government found itself with a record-breaking operating deficit in one budget in the past seven years. It was the government's will and its poor decisions that created a whopping deficit a few years ago. We can see the number of years it took to return to what the Conservatives call a balanced budget, but what is really sleight of hand and a shameful diversion of funds.

My colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour did well to point out, among other things, a further misappropriation of money from the employment insurance fund, amounting to about $2 billion.

He could also have talked about the contingency fund, which serves as insurance for the Government of Canada in the event of a catastrophe or some major disaster that affects Canadians directly, so that the government can provide support to the provinces and municipalities affected.

It is not very surprising that so many seats were won by the NDP in Calgary during the provincial election in Alberta, because this city had been flooded so disastrously. If Calgary were to experience a similar disaster this summer, what would the government do? How would the Conservatives manage after taking all the money out of this fund, which is so essential in the event of a catastrophe?

The Conservatives boast repeatedly about being good managers. It is a myth they are trying to spread by spending millions of dollars on extremely partisan advertising paid for out of the public purse. Unfortunately, as the facts show, the emperor is not wearing any clothes. That is the reality.

Over the past nine years, we have no doubt had the government that has been the worst manager. For months it denied the existence of an economic crisis on which everyone agreed, including all the opposition parties. The NDP had a ringside seat to lobby the government and say that we had to take action to deal with the crisis before us, a crisis which came in large part from the United States. Our American friends suffered enormously, but the government turned a deaf ear. Unfortunately, the late minister of finance, Jim Flaherty, refused to see reality, and with the complicity of the Prime Minister, resisted for months before finally taking action, under pressure from experts and the opposition parties.

This worn-out government's record over the past nine years is extraordinarily bad. It inherited a budget surplus. However it must be said—and there is nothing for the Liberals to be proud of in this—that the surplus was built in large part by depriving the provinces of legitimate transfer payments under the federal contract that had been in place for decades and by making deep cuts in transfers to individuals. The recipe that the Conservatives are using by making giving large corporations huge cuts has also been used by the Liberals. It is very interesting to see that after borrowing and stealing ideas from the NDP for years, the Liberals have now changed their target and are stealing many of the Conservatives’ ideas. The latest example is, of course, the lacklustre plan presented by the member for Papineau, who is trying to win the race of who is going to give the most money to the richest families, such as his own family and the Prime Minister’s. I have not been able to figure out who will win this race, the Conservatives or the Liberals. Of course, I will let them run after the richest people in our society to try to grab their votes.

The concrete reality facing the middle class is that it is suffering from stagnating incomes despite the huge increase in the cost of living, which is forcing people to borrow heavily. We have heard many warnings about the huge debt loads that Canadian households are taking on. I have the immense privilege of serving on the Standing Committee on Finance. I did so in 2013 and I have been serving again since January of this year. I remember the concerns that the chief economist for the TD Bank, Mr. Alexander, very clearly expressed during our study of income inequality. He said that the household debt situation was very troubling for the Canadian economy and that it was an immediate concern. If you look at the macroeconomic data, Canada has nothing to brag about. Despite our wealth of natural resources, our extraordinary human capital and our capacity for innovation, Canada's gross domestic product has stagnated and has been very low. My colleague and immediate neighbour is quite right: our trade balance is a disaster and in a substantial deficit. Maybe this is the Conservative government's new strategy to help developing countries around the world, but for the cost, they should be ashamed for wasting billions of Canadian dollars like that.

In closing, we have a worn-out, tired government. Canadians are really going to have to ask themselves if they want to replace an old horse that is on its last legs with another old horse that already proved its incompetence for four terms about 10 years ago.

People will have some important decisions to make, and the countdown has begun.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. I have very high regard for him. We have worked across party lines on different issues, and I certainly respect him highly.

I have a question on the first part of his speech. He was critical of our government for spending into deficit. In 2008 and 2009, I recall very clearly that when we decided to put some stimulus funding in place to stimulate the manufacturing sector and to create better infrastructure in our communities not only the NDP but the Liberals as well encouraged us to spend more. They said that we were not doing enough. How can one continue to spend more and more and not have the problem he is accusing us of now of having spent too much?

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

I am going to point out some good things about the budget implementation bill. We are pleased that the government has borrowed ideas. It did not steal them; there is no copyright on our ideas. I would like to congratulate the Conservative government for borrowing our idea of lowering taxes for small business and also keeping the accelerated capital cost allowance for small business. I would like to thank the government.

Unfortunately, as is usually the case—and the member will acknowledge it—these worthwhile measures that we could have supported on a stand-alone basis are buried in a host of other measures, including the theft of public servants' right to negotiate sick leave. That is shameful. It is clearly a breach of a constitutional right. This government will lose in court once again before losing for the last time this fall on October 19.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member put the challenge out to Canadians that they will be able to to make a decision. I concur. They will be able to make a decision. They will be able to do a comparison. They will be able to compare this government to the Liberal governments of Paul Martin or Jean Chrétien, when we saw consistently balanced budgets, trade surpluses, and economic activity that generated hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of real jobs. There was beneficial economic growth in all 10 provinces and our territories.

When we talk about health care, the record high amounts in health care spending we have today are because of a Liberal government agreement called the health care accord.

Virtually on every front there is a reason for Canadians to look at the Liberal Party and say that it is a viable alternative.

We have our current leader now focusing attention on the middle class. Prior to the current leader of the Liberal Party being elected leader, the words “middle class” were rarely used here. It has only been since he was elected leader that all the other parties are now jumping on board saying that they too want to help out the middle class. However, the leader of the Liberal Party has consistently been advocating for it.

This is something we believe Canadians are going to tune in to come October 19 and they will recognize and reward us.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his question, or rather his comment, because in the end he did not really ask a question.

I will let the member—like his leader, the member for Papineau—race with the Conservatives to put as much money as possible in the pockets of the wealthy.

That said, I will help him nonetheless. I have his email address and I will send him a lovely table that shows the impact of the decisions made by the Chrétien and Martin governments on the budgets of all the Canadian provinces. Paul Martin was minister of finance at the time. We clearly see the line drop off sharply and then all the provinces post huge operating deficits. It was really difficult for the provinces to recover.

In those days, the PQ government in Quebec had negotiated terrible sacrifices from Quebeckers. We have not recovered from the shortfall of funds, especially in the Quebec health system.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak about some of the key provisions of the economic action plan, 2015, and to support its implementation with Bill C-59.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

On April 21, our Minister of Finance delivered a balanced budget that shows strong support for seniors and families, encourages growth, supports our business and manufacturing sectors, and focuses on the security and prosperity of our great nation. Today I would like to speak to those elements that stand out for me and especially to the constituents of Kitchener—Conestoga, whom I am so humbled and honoured to represent.

As a long-time supporter of and collaborator with the Mental Health Commission of Canada, I was beyond proud to see economic action plan 2015 announce a renewal of the Mental Health Commission's mandate, starting in 2017-18, so that the commission can continue its important work of promoting mental health in Canada and fostering change in the delivery of mental health services, giving specific attention to suicide prevention.

The Mental Health Commission has achieved a number of important milestones since its creation in 2007, including creating a national mental health strategy, developing a national anti-stigma initiative to help reduce discrimination faced by Canadians living with mental illness, and establishing a knowledge exchange centre as a source of information for governments, stakeholders, and the public.

I am proud to have collaborated with the Mental Health Commission of Canada on numerous occasions, and I am hopeful for what the future holds for mental health initiatives and suicide prevention with this 10-year extension. I know that it is eager to continue its work across the country and to implement new programs to help youth, veterans, and all Canadians.

The Waterloo Region is home to organizations such as the Waterloo Region Suicide Prevention Council, which works tirelessly with partnering organizations, professionals, and the community to help those struggling with mental health issues.

I have said in the past that the conversation about mental health is just as important as the legislation, and I know that local groups in my riding would benefit from the ability to continue their work on mental health issues and suicide prevention efforts.

All of these efforts are very effective in getting important conversations out in the open, thereby reducing stigma and bringing hope. Hope is what this is about. I have said on many occasions that hope is the oxygen of the human spirit. Without it, the spirit dies. While the budget implementation act is about numbers, dollars, and cents, at its core it is a message of hope for Canadians.

As the Mental Health Commission of Canada stated, “This is wonderful news for the mental health community.... Together, we have advocated for change. And together, we are succeeding”.

When we put a strong emphasis on mental health as a key priority for our country, we all succeed.

I was honoured to be co-founder of the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care and to have served as its co-chair since 2010. We worked across party lines to promote awareness of deficiencies in palliative and compassionate care in Canada. In 2011, we released a landmark report entitled “Not to be Forgotten”, reporting on the state of palliative care and suicide prevention, which was endorsed by key organizations, including the Canadian Medical Association, among many others.

One of the recommendations arising from our report was to expand the provisions of the employment insurance-based compassionate care benefit to 26 weeks and to ensure its flexibility to allow partial weeks to be covered, allowing caregiver leave for episodic care.

Through the employment insurance program, compassionate care benefits provide financial assistance to people who have to be away from work temporarily to care for a family member who is gravely ill. Canadians should not have to choose between keeping their jobs and caring for their families.

I have always advocated for better availability of care for our society's most vulnerable. The new extension of the compassionate care benefit under EI from six weeks to six months, allowing those taking leave to care for their families, will make a significant difference in the lives of many families who want to care for their loved ones in times of severe health challenges.

I was thrilled to see that the parliamentary committee's palliative and compassionate care report was actually quoted in the budget along with this exciting initiative. As the report states:

Family and friends have been described as the invisible backbone of the Canadian healthcare system.

I am proud of our government's achievements in supporting families.

Speaking of families, there has been tremendous support in my own riding and across the country for the new credits and tax cuts for families. Let me list just a few of them: the doubling of the children's fitness tax credit to $1,000; the family tax cut, saving couples with children up to $2,000 through income splitting; an enhanced universal child care benefit, providing up to $1,920 per year for each child under six and up to $720 per year for each child between the ages of six and 17; and, finally, a $1,000 increase in the maximum claim amount for the child care expenses deduction. These measures would support Canadian families and put money back into the pockets of all families with children.

There is even more good news in the budget to help families and communities prosper. I am particularly pleased with the new initiatives to help seniors and persons with disabilities.

As a result of actions taken to date by the government, seniors and pensioners are receiving about $3 billion in additional annual targeted tax relief. We have doubled the $2,000 maximum amount of income eligible for the pension income credit. We have introduced pension income splitting, which the opposition parties say they would take away. Actually, 2.2 million Canadians take advantage of pension income splitting. I have heard from dozens of pensioners, seniors in my riding, who have told me what a big difference this makes for them.

This budget also supports seniors by reducing the minimum withdrawal factors for registered retirement income funds, RRIFs. This measure, in conjunction with the increase in the TFSA limit to $10,000, would support the retirement income needs of seniors by providing them with increased flexibility to manage their own savings in a tax-efficient manner.

I am also proud of the new home accessibility tax credit to help seniors and persons with disabilities who may face special challenges related to gaining access to their own homes or being mobile or functional within their own homes. Making improvements in their homes can be costly, which is why this new permanent tax credit would apply on up to $10,000 of eligible home renovation expenses per year, providing up to $1,500 in tax relief. These improvements would help ensure that seniors and persons with disabilities could live healthy, independent lives in the comfort of their own homes.

Allowing families to make arrangements to care for their family members through EI compassionate care benefits, helping seniors to have more flexibility with their retirement funds, and introducing new tax credits to help with mobility and accessibility are all concrete efforts to help all Canadian seniors.

As Canada's population ages, age-related cognitive impairment and chronic conditions are sadly becoming more prevalent. The burden on families is vast and continues to grow. Research on aging and brain health issues, such as dementia, can lead to better diagnoses and more effective treatments, which will improve Canadians' quality of life. That is why I am hopeful that the establishment of the Canadian centre for aging and brain health innovation will support new research and the development of products and services to support brain health and healthy aging. This investment would build on the government's strong record of investment in research and support for Canadians suffering from dementia and other neurodegenerative diseases.

Since 2006, our government has cut taxes 180 times, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in 50 years. Bill C-59 would continue our record of reducing taxes with measures such as reducing the small business tax rate from 11% to 9% by 2019, saving Canadian small businesses billions of dollars, and increasing the tax-free savings account annual contribution limit to help make it easier for all Canadians to save for their futures.

While the benefits to all Canadians included in this budget are important, it is crucial to remember that as promised, this is a balanced budget. Canadians understand the importance of living within their means, and they expect their governments to do the same. Balanced budgets keep taxes low and also ensure that government services like health care, education, and money for bridges, roads, clean water, and sewage treatments are sustained over the long haul for Canadians.

I am proud of this balanced budget and the benefits it would bring to Canadians, especially families, seniors and, finally, the most vulnerable among us.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague used the word “family” a lot in his speech, and he talked about all the amazing things his party is doing for Canadian families.

I received a document from some very competent people about the universal child care benefit for middle-class households, meaning a household that earns, on average, between $44,000 and $83,000. Once you receive the $720 benefit, if you subtract the provincial or federal tax you will have to pay, since the benefit is taxable, and if you take into account the loss of the over $2,000 child tax credit that was cut in this budget, you will be left with about $150 in your pocket. From $720 you will get just $150. That is so little that accountants are calling their clients to tell them to keep the money in the bank because they will have to pay taxes on it later as a result of the government's decisions.

The Conservatives have a funny way of helping families by giving with one hand and taking almost all of it away with the other hand, all in the same year. It is rather strange.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question, but what this shows is the clear difference between our party and the NDP and the Liberal Party in how we help families.

The NDP and the Liberals would create a big institutional child care system, which would be mandated on all children, including those who do not even use it in rural areas and who would not be able to access a child care system from a 9 to 5 position because they would not be able to get there. They would like to tax every Canadian in Canada to pay for a system and pay for a bureaucracy that would not help every child and every family.

I am proud that the system we have in place with the universal child care benefit will help every family with children between the ages of 0 and 17. That is something of which we can be proud.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I have an observation. I am always amused to hear every Conservative MP talk about how there are tons of people in their riding who are benefiting from income splitting. If we added it all up, we would think that the majority of Canadians would get benefits from income splitting. I have news, and here are the facts. Fewer than 15% of Canadians will benefit from it.

I would like to say that I have great respect for my colleague, particularly for his concern for mental illness, which I share, and he has done great work on that. He brought out the concept of hope, which is very important.

However, having brought it up, what hope is he offering to the 14% of young people who are looking for something to do in their lives but cannot find jobs? What hope is he offering to veterans who have, frankly, given up on the government? What hope is he offering to the homeless, and there are many in my riding, who not only have no home, but are suffering with addictions and have mental health problems?

What hope would this budget offer them?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague was listening to my comments, because I clearly outlined many areas of hope within my comments. One area that I was not able to mention, because of time, was the area of job creation, of our economy and of small business.

We know that small business is our economic engine. By reducing taxes on small businesses, we are allowing them to create jobs for those young people who currently are unable to get a job. By reducing the taxes on small business from the current 11% to 9%, for a company that is earning $500,000, this will mean a savings of over $36,000 per year. Businesses can plow that money back into their companies and create more jobs for youth and for all Canadians.

However, we cannot create more jobs with high taxes, high spending and borrowing more money, which the NDP and the Liberals would have us do.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to have the opportunity to comment on another great budget from a strong, stable, majority Conservative government.

The budget has been described in my community as centrist, cautious, keeping old promises as well as making new ones, and at times surprisingly compassionate.

The first budget of Minister of Finance, the first balanced one since the great recession of 2008, provides substantial benefits to many Canadians. The budget helps seniors by giving them more flexibility and withdrawals from retirement income funds, and a new tax credit to make homes more accessible. Seniors will also benefit from the new $10,000 contribution limit for a tax-free savings account, as well as new help for people caring for seriously ill relatives.

Families with children will receive improvements for the universal child care benefit and the child care expense deduction, in addition to the previously announced family tax cut. There is help for post-secondary students seeking loans through the Canada student loans program.

To stimulate the economy, the budget offers tax breaks for small business, investment incentives to manufacturers and new infrastructure spending. There will also be more money spent on security measures, both in Canada and abroad.

Despite losing $6 billion in anticipated revenue due to plunging oil prices, the government squeezed out a small surplus in this budget. Now the question is how can we boost the economy? I can tell the House, further deficits are not the answer. No one knows how long such deficits would have to continue, meanwhile increasing debt charges continue to drain economic resources.

The Conservative government promised to balance the budget, and it did. We promised to save money for taxpayers, and we have. We said that we would improve the quality of the lives of people, and we did. We said that we would protect Canadians from security threats and defend democratic values against totalitarian states and terrorist groups, and that is exactly what we are doing. Promises made; promises kept.

Economic action plan 2015 emphasizes supporting Canada's families through tax relief and benefits. Here are some important measures: increasing the tax-free savings account contribution limit to $10,000; introducing the family tax cut to allow a higher income spouse to transfer taxable income to his spouse in a lower tax bracket; tax relief of up to $2,000 per family for couples with children under the age of 18; increasing and expanding the universal child care benefit to provide every family in Canada with $2,000 per year per child under the age of six, and $720 per year per child between the ages of 6 and 17; increasing the child care expense deduction limit by $1,000; doubling the child fitness tax credit to $1,000 and making it refundable; renewing the mandate of the Canadian Mental Health Commission for another 10 years to help tackle mental health issues that affect some Canadian families; and enhancing support for child advocacy centres across Canada to deliver community based programs helping children and families recover from victimization.

Over 11 million Canadians are currently earning tax-free income in their tax-free savings accounts, saving for a down payment on a home, for their kids education or for their retirement. In 2011, the Prime Minister promised to double the contribution limit of the tax-free savings account once the budget was balanced, another promise kept.

The opposition threatens to reverse this increase, claiming it only benefits the rich. However, the Department of Finance has shown that the vast majority of maximum contributors are low to middle-income earners, and many are seniors. It is little wonder that the Canadian Association of Retired Persons strongly endorses the increases to the TSFA limit.

Here are some interesting statistics that contradict the assertion that such measures only benefit the very wealthy. Almost 60% of TSFA maximisers make less than $60,000 per annum. Just under half of TSFA maximisers, 46% of them are seniors. Overall, 80% of the 11 million Canadians who hold tax-free savings accounts have incomes of less than $80,000, and 50% have incomes less than $42,000. All of them will benefit from an increase in the limit.

These measures do not involve taking money from the government, as some oppositions members claim. These measures simply ensure that hard-working families across the country get to keep more of their own money.

The family tax cut will permit a higher-earning spouse to transfer taxable income to a lower tax bracket spouse. Tax relief is capped at $2,000 for couples with children under 18.

Now the opposition asserts that income splitting only benefits 15% of Canadian families, but two things are misleading about that assertion.

First, 15% of Canadian families represent approximately two million households. Any single tax measure that provides relief to two million households is extremely far-reaching. The NDP's proposed child care measure by contrast would benefit only half of this number of Canadians, and that does not even take into account the grandparents who will see the benefit of this in their children's families.

Beyond even that, the Parliamentary Budget Officer found that middle and middle-high income households would benefit most from income splitting. Most of the tax relief would be provided to middle-income families. More than one million families, representing 83% of those earning between $60,000 and $120,000, would qualify for the family tax cut.

Instead of calculating income on an individual basis, the family tax cut would provide moderate relief based on household income, widely accepted as the fairest measure of any family's resources. This is a question of fairness. Families with the same income should be taxed at the same rate. The current system forces some families, which are exactly equal to others, to pay significantly more in taxes, and that is simply unfair. The family tax cut would solve this problem.

Another important facet of economic action plan 2015 is its emphasis on manufacturing as a key engine for the Canadian economy, and this is good news for my residents of Kitchener Centre and Waterloo region. In this budget, the government has delivered an incentive for manufacturers, which provides them with an accelerated capital cost allowance to spur continued investment in required equipment. This measure alone is expected to reduce federal taxes for manufacturers in Ontario by $473 million over the period of 2016 to 2020.

The government's new economic action plan would create an automotive supplier innovation program to deliver $100 million worth of support over five years for automotive part suppliers. The government will also develop a national aerospace supplier development initiative, a made-in-Canada solution, working with industry and government stakeholders, to aid aerospace firms.

Manufacturing is also be assisted by the most ambitious pro-export plan in our country's history so Canadian businesses can pursue global opportunities. Since 2006, the Conservative government has concluded free trade agreements with 38 countries, compared to just five before taking office. Canadian exporters will soon have preferential access to more than half the global marketplace. Opening up new markets is just one of the many ways this government is fostering growth and job creation for Canadians.

As members can see, economic action plan 2015 builds on Conservative government strategies that have helped the Canadian economy emerge stronger and more quickly than any other G7 nation from the worst global recession in over 80 years. That is why every member of the House should support Bill C-59.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to pick his brain, seeing as he is a lawyer.

I would like to draw his attention to division 20 of the budget implementation bill. It creates completely new rules despite the Public Service Labour Relations Act. Authorized experts have indicated that there may be a risk of violating the Canadian Constitution, not to mention disrupting free and healthy negotiation.

As for division 18, which is about the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, the Canadian Press reported that experts said this was rewriting history, plain and simple, and that they were very uncomfortable with the precedents this would set, considering that the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act is retroactive to the day it was introduced.

How comfortable is my lawyer colleague with this kind of legal approach?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his confidence in my legal expertise. I did spend almost 30 years practising law, so I have a good sense of how the law operates. Having been here for seven years now, I also have a sense for how things get spun out of all proper proportion in the political world.

My colleague is placing unfounded fears before the House. With respect to labour negotiations, the budget of course sets the framework. As a lawyer, he will know that the frameworks establishes parameters, negotiations continue, and it is still open to the parties to reach a negotiated solution.

With respect to the long gun registry, my colleague knows full well that the intent of this honourable House was to abolish the long gun registry and to get rid of the data that went with it. This implementation bill would correct any oversight in that regard.

I want to close by reminding my colleague that this budget would reduce the small business tax rate to 9% by 2019. I know that, on his side of the House, he has recently become a convert to low business taxes. Will he support that in this budget?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member really needs to expand his reading to go beyond the Prime Minister's Office. The numbers he throws out are truly amazing. I suspect he might actually believe what he is espousing when he glows about the millions of dollars going from Ottawa to the manufacturing industry. I can tell him that it is not working. Hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs have been lost in Ontario alone. That is a record high. No federal government other than the current one has seen so many jobs disappear.

When the member talks about the income-splitting issue, the bottom line is that less than 15% of people would benefit, the majority of whom are Canada's wealthiest.

When we talk about a deficit, the current government has added $4,400 for every man, woman, and child living in Canada.

My question is this. Does the member exercise any reading outside of the Prime Minister's Office?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly this question demonstrates one of the worst aspects of this particular Parliament, which is when one descends to personal slurs and attacks. It does not bother me, as I am used to hearing it, particularly from the Liberals. I respected and appreciated the comments made by my NDP colleague earlier, because he did not take the same low road that the member who just asked about my reading ability has done.

Just to establish beyond a doubt, let me read some of the things that I have read about this budget to my Liberal colleague, particularly with respect to Canadian manufacturing.

The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters stated:

...this year’s budget backs up the importance of both manufacturing and exporting with a number of important tax and investment measures that will have a very positive impact for CME members.

Most importantly, the budget provides an Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance over the next ten years for investments in manufacturing and processing technologies.

Aéro Montréal stated it is:

...proud that the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of deploying such a program nationwide. This will...[provide a funding boost to programs] already in place in Québec.

Let me close with the Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce, which stated:

From the business perspective, this is a good-news budget. Economic growth in Canada is delivered—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, order.

Resuming debate with the last 10 minutes this evening, the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the member could not put his speaking notes down. He really, truly believes that his speaking notes are his bible.

It is important to speak to this budget, which does such a bad job of addressing real need in Canada. It is a budget that is primarily focused on one thing, and that is the electoral prospects of the Conservative Party. To do that, Conservatives have questionably balanced the ledger and found new ways to reward Canadians who are doing very well.

In addition to that, they have wrapped these measures up in another omnibus bill that is stuffed full of items that have little or nothing to do with the federal budget. That has become a standard move from the Conservative playbook, and Canadians are getting tired of the budget shell game the government plays, with all sorts of measures that have nothing to do with spending and everything to do with keeping debate at a minimum.

That is among the reasons that New Democrats oppose this budget legislation. We oppose it on its content and on the anti-democratic process the Conservatives are using to force it through Parliament.

In many ways, this bill is like all of the other Conservative budgets we have studied in this Parliament. One thing they all have in common is the speed at which the Conservatives pass them, regardless of what is in them. Every day we see that the Conservatives are prepared to use undemocratic measures to impose their laws at breakneck speed. The more controversial the bills are, the faster the Conservatives push them through the House and through committee without proper study.

The other constant with these budgets is the government's ability to completely ignore the measures it could take to truly address the key issues facing the Canadian public. Too often the Conservatives choose to focus on the people they think will vote for them. This group never seems to include the growing number of families who work hard but cannot manage to make ends meet, no matter what they do.

If we look at how this budget was developed, it is clear that the Conservatives balanced the budget by making devastating cuts to the public service, by raiding the employment insurance fund—something they learned from the Liberals—and by selling Canada's shares in General Motors Canada. All of these measures will have an impact on the quality of the services that Canadian families rely on.

Balancing a budget in that way might get a pass at the cabinet table, but it would not get a pass at most kitchen tables, and it certainly would not in northern Ontario. In northern Ontario, people understand the value of hard work and the notion of a fair deal, and they are not seeing much of either in this budget legislation. They see right through things, like the unfair and top-heavy income-splitting scheme in the budget. Northerners understand it is nothing like the income-splitting plan for seniors.

This new scheme is designed to reward the wealthiest among us at a time when Canada has still not replaced the hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs that were lost in the economic meltdown of 2008. This is not a measure to address need. It will not do anything to help with the jobs that are still being lost at places like Bombardier. That is what a budget should be addressing, but this one does far too little to address real need.

Another item that will not fly in the north is the notion that the employment insurance fund is a stream of revenue for the Minister of Finance to tap whenever things become a little difficult. Employment insurance is not supposed to provide mad money for the government so that it can dubiously balance the budget, but that is what has happened. This turns employment insurance into another level of taxation in this country. This means there is no truth to the Conservatives' low-tax stories that they like to tell themselves.

The real truth is that the budget is being balanced on additional taxation that is arrived at by turning employment insurance into a program that is less responsive, less well funded, and as we have seen, less available for those who actually pay the freight. I know that the Conservatives learned this from the Liberals. They turned raiding public funds into something of an art form, but it is stealing, nonetheless, and just because one party did it does not mean it is acceptable or wise. What it amounts to is just more tax for the privilege of having a job, and nothing less.

There are elements of the budget that are acceptable and, in a few cases, pretty good ideas, but that is what happens when we turn to New Democrats for ideas. An example of that is the way we have led the fight for tax relief for small businesses for some time. We heard the Conservatives say it was their idea. In actuality, they voted against it when we put it forward. Now they are saying it is their idea, but it is actually the New Democrats' idea. New Democrats understand that these businesses are Canada's real job creators, and we are happy to see that the government is starting to take action by lowering the tax rate for small and medium-sized businesses. Better late than never; that is the way we feel about this move.

The same can be said for measures that would remove some of the red tape these businesses are forced to navigate. Again, the New Democrats have called on the Conservatives to reduce red tape on small businesses for a while now, so the small amount of movement on that front in this budget is welcome too.

We can also point to the way the government is trying to repair its battered relationship with veterans, as a welcome addition to this omnibus bill. At the same time, we understand that this is just a start and the Conservatives should have gone further and committed to finally fixing Veterans Affairs, implementing the veterans charter, and reopening the nine veterans service centres across Canada. The Conservatives supported our motion this week. Let us hope that they will actually respect it and put it into action.

They are doing something and, as I said during debate on our opposition motion earlier this week, the Conservatives could remove the section related to veterans from inside the budget and bring it before the House of Commons immediately to be debated on its own merit. They may be laughing on that side, but when it comes to veterans, we are supporting them and we are the ones who are taking action. That would be a strong move that would remove the matter of veterans from the debate surrounding more contentious aspects of this budget and allow them to see—as they did when the New Democrats' motion was passed this week—how support for our veterans comes from all parts of the political spectrum. Without pursuing that course of action, the sad fact is that the government is planning to use veterans as a wedge in a cynical political move.

However, that is not what Canadians need or want. There are too many significant challenges to get sidetracked by an argument that has been planned for and is brazenly calculated.

What we need to be seized with, and what is missing from this budget, are measures that would deal with some of the bigger problems our country faces, like persistent and structural youth unemployment and under-employment. In fact, there is not much for young people in this budget at all. There are no messages of hope from the government on that front. The Conservatives should try to implement a youth hiring and training credit that would help businesses create jobs for young Canadians, but they did not. That is a New Democrat idea that the Conservatives could have borrowed as well. It would have been smart. Instead, the government is all in on items that would benefit a small and well-off portion of the population, with wasteful and unfair tax schemes like income splitting and increasing the tax-free savings account, which would cost billions. To pay for this, the Conservatives are nickel and diming most everyone else.

I encourage Canadians to understand that we are paying for these measures in some part on the backs of seniors who are being allowed to live under or at the poverty line for another budget cycle. That is because there is nothing in this budget to lift seniors out of poverty. New Democrats would never hand out lavish tax breaks without first addressing the circumstances of vulnerable seniors. We would immediately reverse the federal government's plan to raise the retirement age of old age security and the guaranteed income supplement to 67. New Democrats would also move forward on proposals for provincial and territorial finance ministers to increase basic public pension benefits under the Canada and Quebec pension plans and implement a plan to begin phasing in such an increase without delay, because that is what seniors need and what they deserve.

What Canadians need and deserve is a government that delivers for the whole country and not just for its supporters. Canadians deserve budgets that concern themselves with economic measures and that are not chock-full of the government's dirty work. Canadians deserve a budget that will bring back some of the good jobs we have lost during the Conservatives' reign, and of course, they deserve a budget that works to bring people together and not divide them.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time for government orders today has expired, but the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing will get five minutes for questions and comments when this matter next returns before the House.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Erin O'Toole, Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House, in two capacities, to speak on the budget implementation act.

I am very honoured to represent my home town in Parliament as the member of Parliament for Durham and the communities of Clarington, Scugog and Uxbridge. I will speak to some of the great elements of economic action plan 2015 that concerns my constituents in my riding and issues for which I have advocated.

I also have the tremendous honour to sit in the House of Commons as the Minister of Veterans Affairs. As someone who has served in the Canadian Armed Forces for 12 years and had worked on these issues before joining this Parliament, it is a profound honour that I take seriously. There are some amazing new benefits and programs in the budget implementation act for veterans and their families, which I have made a pledge to pass before Parliament rises for the summer. It is why it is in the budget implementation act itself.

First, as the member of Parliament for Durham, I am very proud of this budget and what we would implement with it, because this is the culmination of four years of dedicated and strategic work by the Prime Minister and by our government.

Budgets do not balance themselves. Governments need to set priorities. They need to plan and they need to ensure they set an environment for job creation and economic growth, without taxing Canadians and small businesses too much, so we can stimulate an active economy and really see job creation and participation in our economy by young people, families and through seniors in their working and retirement years.

First, this budget is a balanced budget. We made a commitment to reach balance in 2015. We did that while raising transfer payments, in my case, to Ontario by over 80% for health and education. We did not take the route the Liberals did to balance a budget by slashing transfers to the provinces and making premiers cut hospitals and nurses. We have been increasing steadily that commitment. We have balanced the budget through growing the economy and by slowing the growth of government to core and strategic areas.

We told Canadians that once we achieved balance, we would offer tax relief for families with young children, seniors who were on fixed incomes and to continue to stimulate our economy. I am proud to say we have done that.

On the universal child care benefit, it is key to recognize that it is universal. Families with children will receive support, and then they can make their own decisions on what best works for their family. Whether one parent steps away from the workforce for a few years, whether one reduces and goes part time, whether they use live-in care, whether they use daycare, whether they use a parent or an aunt to look after the kids, parents make their choices and we empower that through our universal child care benefit. This has been very well received in my riding of Durham.

Now we are increasing it to $160 per month for children under six, which will be almost $2,000 a year for families to make their decisions with respect to child care. We are also enhancing it beyond the age of six, recognizing that there is after-school care. Schools get out 3 p.m. and parents need flexibility. Therefore, there will be almost $720 in a new extension of the universal child care benefit for children 6 to 17. We are increasing the child care expense deduction by $1,000 to allow people who use child care services to have more tax deductibility for that.

With our family tax cut, we are allowing income splitting on a limited basis for families in particular where mom or dad decides to step out of the workplace for a few years or reduce their hours. We are allowing that family unit to be taxed as more of a single unit, because parents are making decisions as a unit when they are raising families. All families do. I see that daily in my area of Courtice, Ontario. Therefore, while they are raising their children, this will allow them to smooth off that income and save up to $2,000 as part of our family tax cut.

For seniors, we are continuing to build on recognizing that seniors built the country, they are on fixed incomes in their pension retirement years and they need our support. Costs are going up.

We introduced pension income splitting a few years ago to allow seniors to be taxed as a unit while on a fixed income. In this budget, we have provided more flexibility so less withdrawals from RRIFs have to occur to allow for more savings. We have increased the tax-free savings account to $10,000 to allow financial planning and certainty for seniors and all families, and to encourage a saving culture.

I am also very proud that this government has listened to the MPs who hear from seniors in their ridings who want to stay in their homes and, in some cases, need modifications made to stay there. We have the home accessibility tax credit of up to $1,500, which would allow seniors to make modifications so they could stay in their own homes.

We are delivering for families and seniors with a balanced budget, as we promised.

Small businesses are the majority of employers across Canada. We have been cultivating the small business sector with over 30% lower taxes for it, allowing small businesses to invest with tax measures and encouraging them to hire in recent years with a new-hire tax credit. I am very proud our government is lowering the small business tax credit in this budget, from 11% to 9%. That allows small businesses to hire a few more people, to invest in their operations, to be competitive and grow. It is about jobs across the country, including in my riding of Durham.

This is how governments should work. It makes a plan, sets priorities, articulates that to Canadians, and then has the leadership that this Prime Minister has shown to deliver on that plan. This budget and the implementation of it recognizes that we are delivering exactly what we said when we reached a balance budget: support for families with young children, support for seniors, and stimulating economic growth and job creation in communities across the country.

In the remainder of my time, I will speak as the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I am very happy that the budget implementation act has some tremendous new benefits for veterans and their families, building on the work of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs last year. The new veterans charter needed to be updated and amended to address our most seriously injured, those who have the most difficult time transitioning from their careers in the Canadian Armed Forces, and some of the gaps in the new veterans charter brought in by the Liberal government, implemented by our government, and voted on by all members in the House. With fixes contained in this budget implementation act, we will get to a veterans charter that will serve more than just most veterans. It will serve all veterans.

The retirement income security benefit addresses the issue of post-65 income for seriously injured veterans, when their earning loss benefit ends at 65 and they hit those retirement years. Under the old system, they would have seen a big drop in income at 65. We fixed that. We are guaranteeing them a predictable level of income post- 65, along with a permanent impairment allowance, another lifetime benefit, which over time I want to see streamlined into a single pension for the most seriously injured. With the retirement income security benefit, the RISB, contained in this implementation act, we will give peace of mind to veterans, who are moderately to severely injured in service to Canada, and their families.

Also in this implementation act is a critical injury benefit, a benefit that recognizes and compensates for the pain and suffering that servicemen and women will go through if they are critically injured in service to their country, an acute injury that leads to hospitalization, intensive care, surgical intervention. In the past, if they recovered, they would get a disability award based on the recovery without recognizing all the pain and suffering of that recovery time. The critical injury benefit would do that.

As well, there is the family caregiver relief benefit for the most seriously injured, which will provide over $7,000 tax free to a family to provide more flexibility. If we know a spouse or adult child is an added caregiver, Veterans Affairs will provide contracted care in the home. However, the home will be changed if someone is seriously injured. We are providing more flexibility, recognizing the critical role of family in the wellness of veterans.

These types of new benefits for the most seriously injured veterans and their families are items for which all parties have asked. They were contained in Bill C-58, but after six weeks of delay, intentional or not, six weeks of criticism of the very reforms that some members of the House asked for last year, I have included all of these provisions alongside our purpose statement of obligation in the budget implementation act.

It is a great act not just as the MP for Durham and the support for families and businesses, but I am profoundly proud of what it would do for veterans and their families.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his service to the Canadian Armed Forces. He said that he would like to pass this before Parliament rose and yet he had an opportunity to do so just last week when the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore asked for unanimous consent to pass Bill C-58 several times, which roughly covers the same ground.

It is hard to listen to the member talk about us putting obstacles in the way of veterans' benefits when the member was not willing to pass it right away. Our veterans need real support. Veterans Affairs runs just one hospital close to my riding, which is known as Ste. Anne's Hospital. Sean Bruyea, a veterans advocate, says that it is essential to have such hospitals because they understand that the needs of veterans are unique.

Supporting our troops needs to be more than just a bumper sticker slogan. We need true support for our troops and support for the families of veterans. Will the member undertake to take Bill C-58 out of the omnibus budget bill and pass it right away, right here, right now?

[Erin O'Toole]

Mr. Speaker, I made a commitment to veterans and their families over the last four months, as we have rolled out new benefits, new improvements, many of which members like the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore recommended as part of the standing committee last year. When these benefits were rolled out, they were criticized, suggesting there would be delays on it. Therefore, we are moving to ensure I keep my commitment by putting it in the budget implementation act.

When the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore asked for unanimous consent of Bill C-58, it was after the budget implementation act had already been earmarked to go before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs for debate. Unfortunately, that member and the NDP continue to be several steps behind and continue to play a little politics on these issues.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to a balanced budget. It is important for people to recognize that we are months away from an election, and the Minister of Finance proclaims to all Canadians that we have a balanced budget. He wholesaled $2 billion worth of GM shares. He dipped into the contingency fund, something which other ministers said they would not do, to balance the budget. The Conservatives created a false impression that they actually created a balanced budget with a surplus of just over $1 billion. Canadians need to be aware that the Conservative majority government has never achieved a balanced budget, but miraculously in the year of an election, it has claimed it has one.

Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin consistently produced balanced budgets. Does the member believe the Conservative government will fool Canadians into believing it has a balanced budget when in reality it does not?

[Erin O'Toole]

Mr. Speaker, I am little surprised my friend would phrase the question that way if he listened to my remarks. This is a balanced budget. There still is contingency funds set aside. There has been spending on priority areas for Canadians. However, what makes it very different from the budgets of the Chrétien era is the fact that we have balanced this budget without foisting on the provinces massive cuts to health care. The interesting thing is that member would know he made the provinces cut and slash. He made Roy Romanow close more hospitals than any premier in the history of that province because Liberals balanced the budget on the backs of the provinces. That is not leadership.

The Liberals also slashed the Canadian Armed Forces in the nineties down to threadbare status. We have not done that either.

I am proud that we are balancing the budget and offering tax relief. My province of Ontario, under the course of this budget, has received over 80% more in transfers. We are allowing the provinces to have a steady and predictable stream of income for their priorities and we are making the priorities set on a federal level to balance.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to a previous question that continues to be put out to mislead people about veterans' hospitals, could the Minister of Veterans Affairs clarify the situation with veterans' hospitals and what has been going on with them, frankly, for the last 40 years, in terms of transferring to the provinces?

[Erin O'Toole]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and RCAF caucus colleague from Edmonton Centre for his question and his work for veterans. He knows these issues perhaps better than anyone in this House. I have learned a lot from him, and we are going to proceed to inform my friend from the NDP about how this program has worked.

Veterans Affairs Canada did have a network of hospitals in the 1950s, after World War II, before Canada had public health care. Beginning with Prime Minister Diefenbaker in the 1960s, these hospitals started being transferred to provincial governments.

As the member from Quebec noted, the final hospital transfer is of Ste. Anne's Hospital to the Quebec government. The transfer of Camp Hill, for instance, which the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore mentions quite regularly, was carried out in 1978.

The provinces will set the priorities on how those facilities are used. However, any veterans injured in the service of their country will have their care, including long-term care, paid for by the federal government.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to denounce this government's undemocratic ways.

We have before us a budget implementation bill that is over 160 pages long, contains over 270 provisions and amends dozens of laws. I find it appalling that the government has introduced such a huge bill that includes legislation that has nothing to do with the budget. What is the prevention of terrorist travel act doing in a budget implementation bill?

I think it is worth pointing out that the current Prime Minister was the first to condemn this kind of practice when the Liberals were in power. At the time, he was shocked that a government could enact so many laws in one fell swoop. He has become very good at something he once denounced.

The number of pages in this omnibus bill is not the only problem. Another frightening thing is that the government is refusing to debate it. It imposed a gag order, as it does every time one of its bills contains contentious provisions. We cannot properly represent our constituents, the people who elected us, if we do not have the time to thoroughly examine the proposed provisions.

We are talking about the budget implementation bill. We are talking about Canada's future, and it is not right for a government to have such contempt for the people or toy with its institutions. This government is making a mockery of democracy and thumbing its nose at Canadians.

I will now talk about the content of the bill. Bill C-59 is a bill that we cannot support.

Let us start with income splitting. This is the perfect example of how out of touch the Conservatives are, since, as we know, only families with two incomes in two different tax brackets will benefit from this measure.

I would like to remind everyone of the impact that income splitting has on women. I have the good fortune of sitting on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, and I would like to share some of what we heard from witnesses. According to them, single women and single-parent families will not benefit at all from income splitting.

Similarly, the elimination of the child tax credit will take away about $2 billion from parents, many of whom are single parents. All of the family-related tax transfers actually deter the very women the government claims to care about.

Fewer women will be participating in the workforce as a result of this measure. According to Kathleen Lahey of the faculty of law at Queen's University, the advantages of income splitting will actually encourage young women and female college graduates to pay even less attention to their salary, since, after they talk to their peers, spouse or partner, they will know that it may be more worthwhile for the family to replace paid work with unpaid work.

While the whole country is trying to find better jobs for women, the government is using tax breaks to encourage them not to work. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer, whom the Conservatives love to quote, has been critical of income splitting.

He estimates that the average benefit will go to families whose income exceeds $180,000, which is 15% of families. He also said that income splitting will cost taxpayers $2.5 billion in 2015. The Conservatives are ignoring the 85% of Canadian families who will not benefit from this measure. Why? Because they have their sights set on the election coming up in a few months and they are more interested in helping out those they think will vote for them. That group of people never seems to include families that are working very hard and having trouble making ends meet. The fact is that these families are struggling with income stagnation and the rising cost of living, which is prompting them to take on massive debt.

There are now 250,000 fewer jobs in Canada than there were before the recession, and 160,000 fewer jobs for youth. If one believed all the ads the government has bought with taxpayer money—almost $750 million worth—one would think everything was hunky-dory. However, Canadians know different because they are still carrying the highest debt loads in Canadian history.

In an atrocious economic environment, one would think job one from the government of the day would be to create jobs, to get people back to work, to diversify the economy, and to invest in the economy in ways that would actually produce the jobs that we have been missing since the last global recession.

Instead, we see the true priorities of the Conservatives when it comes to jobs, and that is their own jobs. They are hoping to buy back re-election just one more time. That is why they raised the ceiling for the TFSA, which will benefit only 20% of the wealthiest Canadians and will not increase Canadians' savings; however, it will certainly cost our economy billions of dollars.

Instead of doing things that are not going to stimulate our economy, the government could have invested in our health care system. Investing in health is an investment in Canada's economic future. For example, providing care to someone over 65 costs five times more than providing care to someone between 15 and 65. This Conservative government is turning a deaf ear and abandoning our seniors, the middle class and the least fortunate, who will not be able to access adequate health care. They prefer to spend money on catering to the needs of the highest earners.

Canadians deserve a government that works for all Canadians, not just for its supporters. They deserve a budget that works for them and contains sound economic measures, not electoral goodies.

I will close by emphasizing that this is the 96th time the government is imposing time allocation in this parliament. In Canada, we have never had a government that abused time allocation and closure as much as this one has. This is a testament to the arrogance and incompetence of this government, which has introduced a number of bills in the House of Commons that have been rejected by the courts. They were rejected because the government does not really do its due diligence to verify its bills. Canadians are fed up with this government that plays fast and loose with its institutions and they will prove it in October.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when I think about the budget as a priority document of the government, there are many things that come to mind, such as the importance of Canada's middle class, which is the driving force in our economy, and the government's unfair approach favouring Canada's wealthiest.

However, I want to also highlight the importance of social programming, whether it is health care, something Canadians feel passionate about; our many pension programs, which are of critical importance to our seniors and those who will eventually become seniors, obviously, because it is about disposable income; and crime and safety in our communities.

There is so much more the government could have done if it understood that the Government of Canada has a leadership role to play in terms of working with stakeholders, whether it is a province, a municipality, or different stakeholders, to make a difference. On many fronts, I would suggest that the government has failed.

I would ask the member if she believes that my comments are fair in looking at the government's disappointments over the last number of years.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comment and his question.

What he said about the Conservatives' record is definitely true. However, the fact remains that the Liberals have nothing to offer to two-thirds of Canadians and they would only help wealthy Canadians who earn up to $200,000 a year. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals are concerned about the middle class, which cannot make ends meet.

For our part, we will establish an NDP government that will propose concrete solutions for the middle class and increase prosperity for that segment of the population.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, on the topic of concrete measures, this particular bill proposes lowering the small business tax rate to 9% and extending the accelerated capital cost writeoff for manufacturers out 10 years. I recall only weeks ago that members across the way were suggesting that this was the centrepiece of the NDP's manufacturing and job creation strategy.

Would the member now stand in her place and vote in favour of the bill?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I loved the question from my colleague opposite because it really speaks to what we want to do.

I am pleased to hear that the government has come to its senses and wants to adopt the NDP position on small and medium-sized businesses. However, according to this budget, the measure will only be implemented in 2019. We have said that if we were elected, we would implement it in our first term in order to lighten the tax burden and stimulate the economy. We know that SMEs are the driver of the Canadian economy and that they create the most jobs.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert for her inspiring speech on the Conservatives' budget implementation bill.

Yesterday evening, I took the time to call some of my constituents. One thing that kept coming up when they talked about their concerns and priorities, particularly with regard to the proposed budget, was health. It is no secret. Health is an issue that comes up a lot. An 80-year-old woman that I spoke to told me that one of her friends was beginning to show symptoms of Alzheimer's. She told me about how health care is becoming less and less accessible.

Since my colleague worked in the health care system for a long time, I would like to hear what she has to say about the impact of the Conservatives' cuts to health transfers. How will that affect our communities?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her relevant question.

It is no secret. Everyone knows that we cannot do anything without our health. This Conservative government, which cut provincial health transfers from 6% to 3%, is going to deprive the provinces of $35 billion in health care funding. As my colleague mentioned, these cuts will have a negative impact on the quality of care, the accessibility of care and every other area affecting health. It is unacceptable for a government to make cuts to health care when we know that the provincial systems are suffering.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House today on Bill C-59, the budget implementation bill.

This bill contains a number of measures that were introduced in our recent economic action plan 2015. That budget contained measures we campaigned on. We all campaigned in 2011 as Conservatives on certain things in that platform. We said we would balance the budget by 2015-16, and we have delivered on that promise with this budget.

We campaigned that once the budget was balanced and we were back into a surplus position, we would bring in a family tax cut that would benefit families by allowing them to reallocate some of their income, from one family member to another, to more fairly tax at a household rate. That would allow families to reduce their tax burden and be taxed like similar income families. That is what we have done in this budget.

We campaigned on expanding the tax-free savings account, which we introduced and the opposition parties opposed. We said we would expand that once we were back into a surplus position, and that is what we have done here in this budget.

We made commitments to Canadians during that campaign, and we are delivering on them with this budget.

This budget has many features in it that will benefit not only all Canadians but specifically the people of Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon. There is support for families, support for seniors, support for our veterans, support for farmers, and support for small businesses.

We propose to reduce the small business tax rate to 9% by 2019, putting an estimated $2.7 billion back into the pockets of job-creating small businesses and their owners between now and 2019-20.

We know that the very first thing the Liberal leader did when he walked outside the room, while the budget was still being read, was say that he would take that away. He said he would take away the tax reduction for small businesses, which are responsible for the vast majority of job creation in Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon and indeed for 50% of jobs right across the country. We believe they deserve to be supported. The Liberal Party would take that benefit away.

We said that we would increase the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1 million for owners of farm and fishing businesses. In my riding, in the Fraser Valley, we have a large number of farms. I believe it is 400 farms. Those people work hard day and night, seven days a week, to not only provide for their families and employees but to provide for all Canadians the food we eat. They help feed the cities, as they like to say. We believe that when the time comes for them to take their well-deserved retirement and sell that business to a family member, they should be able to keep more of the money they have earned so that they can enjoy that retirement.

As I said before, we have increased the tax-free savings account annual contribution limit to $10,000, effective in 2015 and for subsequent years. Again, the opposition has said they would take that away.

I spoke to a constituent who called me right after the budget was tabled. He wondered if that provision, that extended TFSA, was already available. I was pleased to tell him that it was. He is not a wealthy Canadian. I know that the Leader of the Opposition likes to denigrate people who save money for their own retirement. He has said that they are just putting money aside for their second BMW. What an insult to the people of Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon and right across this country.

This constituent I talked to drives a 10-year-old minivan. He lives in a modest home with his wife, and they have one car. They are not wealthy Canadians, but they are setting aside money for their own retirement. They believe, like I do, that the government should not tax them once when they earn and tax them again when they go to take that out of a financial instrument. They are quite happy with the change to the TFSA.

I want to focus, as well, on our family tax cut. I want to give a couple of examples. We heard it again today from the opposition. They talk about how the family tax cut benefits the well-off and the well-connected, just the rich. What an insult, again, to the people of Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon. I will tell the House about the people this is benefiting in my riding.

One of my constituents is a high school teacher. He works hard. His wife is a graphic designer who works from home, part time now because they have just welcomed twin boys to their family. They now have four children under the age of seven. He works outside of the home; his wife stays home, works part time, and works full time as a mother to their four kids. Under the family tax cut, they will receive the maximum $2,000 credit. They will also receive $6,480 per year in the universal child care benefit, something the Liberal Party and the NDP would take away from them.

Again, these are people who live in a modest home in the old part of Chilliwack. These are not people living in a mansion and driving two BMWs, as the NDP likes to say. They drive a 10-year-old minivan and are looking after their family. However, the NDP and the Liberals would take away their benefits because they think they are a wealthy, well-connected rich family.

Another example is a constituent who is an electrician. In order to make things better for his family, he has decided to leave them behind three weeks at a time to go and work in the oil patch up in Fort McMurray. His wife, who used to be a health care technician, was forced to leave the workforce because of a disability. She receives CPP disability and stays home to provide home school to their two children, who are also disabled. Because of their disability and their challenges, they are unable to operate in a traditional school environment. This family too will get the full $2,000 family tax cut.

However, the NDP and Liberals would say that an electrician with a wife on CPP disability are rich, well-connected, and wealthy. They would say they do not deserve it and it is not fair if they get it. What nonsense. They work hard to put food on the table for their families as high school teachers and electricians. Again, these families would receive the $2,000 credit and $1,440 a year to help with their child care costs, which is something the Liberals and NDP would take away.

There is even more.

There are a number of seniors in my riding. People come to Chilliwack and the Fraser Canyon to retire because we have a great community and the warmest overall temperature in Canada. We do not get the cold winters that people suffer through here in Ottawa. We get lovely summers as well. People like to retire in Chilliwack.

In this budget we have introduced a reduction in the minimum withdrawal factors for registered retirement income funds to permit seniors to preserve more of their retirement savings so as to better support their retirement income needs. We have also brought in supports for seniors and people with disabilities to allow them to stay in their own homes. We would give them a tax credit to allow them to renovate and make their homes safer and more accessible as they age or need help to deal with a disability. We want them to be able to live independently and safely in their own homes for as long as possible, and that is what this budget, this BIA, would do.

We are also extending the employment insurance compassionate care benefit from six weeks to six months to better support Canadians caring for gravely ill and dying family members. All of us have experienced that terrible loss of a family member who may have fallen suddenly ill and the devastating impact that has, not only on the individual but on those who provide care and who may have relied on that individual for their well-being and livelihood. It is such a shock. Allowing six months to be with someone who is ill and time for grieving and healing afterwards, because the pain and suffering do not end when a person passes away, is an important new aspect of this act.

Once again, this budget implementation act would implement measures from economic action plan 2015. We campaigned on it and we have kept our commitment to Canadians. We are reducing taxes for families, and as I have shown in both of my examples, these are average, everyday Canadians who are working for their own families. These are not people who are living high on the hog. They are people we all see in our communities. Every single family with children under the age of 18 will benefit because of this bill and because of this budget, and that is why I am so proud to support it.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that the government is helping seniors, but as I recall, when it slashed health care funding a couple of years ago, it decided that from now on the CHT, the transfers to the provinces, would all be done on a straightforward, per capita basis. In other words, there would not be an equalization component, as there had been up to that point, which means that provinces that have a disproportionately higher seniors population will not see the transfer they get reflect that fact.

I am just wondering if, as a result of this rather pernicious change, the government is not in some way indirectly, at least, disadvantaging our seniors population in those provinces that have a proportionately high seniors population.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what audacity for a Liberal member of Parliament to stand and talk about health care transfers, when the Liberals balanced their books by slashing $25 billion from the health care transfers to the provinces during their 13 years in power. That was a shameful record. They balanced their budget on the backs of the people who needed health care, on the backs of seniors, on the back of education. They completely gutted those transfers.

We have increased those transfers by 6% per year, and on a go-forward basis 3% a year, or the rate of growth, whichever is higher.

I know the Liberals do not like to hear about their terrible record on health care transfers. By the end of the decade, our transfers will be $40 billion per year, the highest record in Canadian history. We are proud of our record. They should be ashamed of theirs.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share some of the comments of one of this member's constituents, Phil Harrison, a senior in Chilliwack, from a letter he put in the Chilliwack Progress. He said:

Both the federal Conservatives and B.C. Liberals have reduced my income taxes for me. Why would I disagree with their policies? We are the privileged generation—you may enjoy the same privileges, in retirement, while they last.

Why the concern? Only because we have grandchildren who will be paying for the privileges and lifestyle that the B.C. Liberals and Conservatives think we deserve (for votes), with borrowed government money. It's called debt, and the B.C. Liberals have doubled it in the last decade or so.

We are also at record levels of household debt.

What would this member say to his own constituent, Mr. Phil Harrison, a senior living in Chilliwack?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that information from the member. I would tell my constituent what I just told everyone here in the House, that we want to provide direct benefits to that member's grandchildren and the family that raises them.

We have said that we want to provide income splitting for the family raising his grandkids. We want to give direct support to the grandkids through the universal child care benefit, unlike the NDP plan, which would not help them, which would not help either of the families I mentioned in my examples, and which would only help if they registered their kids in registered day care. That is the only way they are a real family, according to the NDP.

We believe that every child, every family, and that person's grandchild all deserve to be supported by the government through the universal child care benefit, and that is why we put the money directly in the hands of the families themselves.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his intervention.

Obviously, we know, those of us who come from farming districts, and I come from one of the better known ones in this country, that the average age of farmers is significantly high. Drawing in young farmers, that succession planning from one generation to the next, becomes important.

I wonder if the member would comment on the capital gains exemption we put in place in this bill and why the opposition should support that if it wants to support farmers.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again, I mentioned that we are increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1 million for farmers.

Often, given the costs of farming and land in the Fraser Valley, it is necessary for the farm to be passed down to the next generation for that next generation to get a start. They are the backbone of our economy. We are pleased to support them, and that is why I am so pleased to support this budget.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to another massive bill. Yet again we are under time allocation, even though there are still so many things to say about this budget.

Today I will focus on one aspect that is important to me, which is that this budget undermines our public finances. I will explain why, but first let me set the stage. The budget announces a surplus of $1.4 billion. This, after seven consecutive years of deficits. Those years were responsible for 25% of the Government of Canada's debt.

There are some measures in the budget that are not bad. In fact, the Conservatives took the NDP's idea to reduce the tax rate for small businesses, and we can only applaud them for borrowing our strategy, since small businesses are job creators.

However, we also have to consider the current financial circumstances. The price of oil has dropped quite a bit. This represents a loss of $5 billion for the federal government. In spite of this, the Conservatives still managed to give gifts to specific groups, for example, by nearly doubling the TFSA limit and bringing in income splitting. The government loves to give us examples of the people who could benefit from these measures, people who are not necessarily well-off. However, we all know that the vast majority of those who will benefit are wealthy.

There are some real consequences associated with TFSAs and income splitting. At a time when public finances are far from healthy, the government is forfeiting billions of dollars in revenue that could have helped it get our fiscal house in order. However, we have to wonder whether this government even wants to get our fiscal house in order. I am not sure.

Let us look at how they managed to achieve a surplus. People need to remember a few things. For instance, 20,000 federal public servants have been laid off in the last few years. Let us not forget that. The result of that, of course, is a reduction in the quality of service. The contingency fund has been slashed from $3 billion to $1 billion. Let us not forget the appropriation of the employment insurance surplus and the sale of the GM shares, on which the government lost $600 million. Obviously, that does not factor into a budget. The Conservatives also want to save $900 million on the sick leave system used by their public servants. I think the current surplus is extremely fragile. It is fragile because, out of everything I just listed, the government used $7 billion in non-recurrent revenues to achieve a surplus of $1.4 billion. This is problematic.

The Conservative government's objective is quite clear. The credit cards are maxed out. It decided to cut its revenues, to offer gifts, not to pay its debts and to leave the problems to the next government or the next generation, depending on how you look at it.

Now I want to talk specifically about one area where the government is counting on saving money. I am talking about the cuts to sick leave. Earning a salary and being compensated is not just about a paycheque. Of course there is the salary, but there is also overtime, group insurance, pension plans and working conditions. However, above all, in addition to vacation time, there is sick leave. When we talk about compensating employees, we are not just talking about salary. It is important to keep that in mind.

I was listening to the parliamentary secretary earlier. His speech was based on an assumption that I do not care for, and that is that unused sick leave will be used for things other than illness. Let us think about that for a moment. I do not wish this on anyone in the House, or on myself, but accidents can happen.

People can be hospitalized. In life, anything can happen to make people temporarily unable to work, and that can last longer than three, four or five days. That is life. Suggesting that people will use banked sick days for purposes other than those for which they were created is an appalling assumption for the government to make. That is a problem.

In most departments, when someone gets sick for a short time with the flu or something else, that position is not backfilled. There are no additional costs to the government in those cases.

There is also something missing from the budget: the cost of the government's proposed new system. That system has not yet been costed, but there will be a cost associated with it. How much will it cost? We do not know. How big a dent will that make in the $900 million? We do not know. I think that when the minister says it will be $900 million, he is getting ahead of himself and making negative assumptions. I would rather see good-faith negotiations between public servants and the government to determine what is fair for both sides.

Once again, this $900 million represents another one-time measure that can be added to the list of other one-time measures. Suppose this happens. I hope it does not because, in my opinion, it constitutes a breach of contract to take back what was already given under a collective agreement. However, if it does, where does that take us?

By the way, public service employees are also taxpayers. Too often people forget that. People believe that public servants are living in a bubble and that they do not pay taxes. Public servants pay taxes like everyone else. They are taxpayers like everyone else and, what is more, they provide services to Canadians. It is because of them that policies become programs, which then become public services. We must not forget that and we need to treat these people with the respect they deserve.

The government is making another cut. This time, it is going after employee compensation directly. Because of the Conservatives, public servants are becoming more discouraged. Do we really need that? Their working conditions are obviously deteriorating, but the members on the other side of the House do not seem to be too bothered by that. They are demoralizing the public service to such an extent that people are going to have to leave, because all of a sudden, their overall working conditions—or what I call their overall compensation—will no longer be competitive compared to other sectors.

What will happen then? Skilled employees will leave and the government will begin to lose its ability to operate effectively. We cannot allow this loss of competitiveness, effectiveness and professionalism to happen. In fact, what I am trying to say is that this measure might only save money on paper.

This surplus is really fragile. The government used a lot of gimmicks to get there. One of those gimmicks is going to have long-term effects on federal public servants. The government is picking on them to try to win votes, and I find that disgraceful. Based on that assumption, I do not believe that we will have a surplus of $1.4 billion as announced by the Minister of Finance.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly listened with great interest to my colleague's speech. I would like to ask him a question about a subject that he did not cover in his speech, unless I missed it.

I am referring to the measure included in the budget implementation bill that would retroactively absolve the RCMP of breaching the Access to Information Act.

What does my colleague think of this type of retroactive approach intended to absolve those who allegedly broke the law?

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question, which is a fundamental one in a state governed by the rule of law.

We cannot retroactively endorse acts that were previously illegal. That is fundamental. We cannot play with people's lives and what they do.

Who is to say that this will not create a precedent and that a lawful act committed freely and knowingly one day could not be made unlawful the next?

We cannot play with such fundamental aspects of life in society simply because it suits us. These are dangerous precedents and I completely agree with my colleague on that.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He has a long history of standing up for workers, which is something he has kept up here in Parliament.

I would like to talk about the omnibus nature of the bill, since my colleague touched on some very specific points in this bill, which I give him credit for, because he has developed an expertise in these areas.

However, this bill is incredibly broad and will impose some measures that should not normally be found in a budget. As the citizenship and immigration critic, I can confirm that this bill contains some measures that affect citizenship and immigration and that should be studied much more carefully, outside the context of an omnibus bill. Unfortunately, this context is exactly what will prevent us from studying these measures.

Could my colleague comment on how these measures are being brought before the House?

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question, which comes up every time the government introduces a massive bill.

One of our main duties here in the House is to legislate. This means that we must be capable of thoughtfully evaluating the different aspects of the laws we want to put in place.

Unfortunately, when the government introduces an omnibus bill to fix all of the problems at the same time, it is an attempt to trick us. Sometimes, it is only after one or two years that we realize that one part of the bill should have been studied more carefully.

My colleague is absolutely right when she says that everything that affects society is worthy of careful consideration, especially when the government is not only imposing a massive bill, but also a limit on debate.

This undermines our ability to produce sound legislation.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on Bill C-59, our budget implementation act for economic action plan, 2015.

The good news is that the federal government has balanced its budget and now we are helping families to balance theirs. We are doing so by introducing the family tax cut, the enhanced universal child care benefit enhancements for children under 6, and a new universal child care benefit for those between 6 and 17 years. That would help families balance their budget and get ahead.

There are a number of things I like about the budget implementation bill before us today and in the short amount of time I have, I am going to try to lay them out as quickly as I possibly can and explain why I am supporting this particular measure.

Farm succession is an important issue, drawing in the younger generation of farmers in Essex county. We do about $1 billion-plus in agricultural GDP each and every year. Extending the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1 million for owners of farm businesses, which is contained in this act, would go a long way in succession planning and drawing in our young farmers.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister was in Windsor—Essex, talking about manufacturing. There is a lot to say in Bill C-59. We would be extending the accelerated capital cost allowance out to 10 years. That would give a lot of predictability. I encourage the opposition members, who said they supported that measure, to actually stand in their place to vote for it now.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made Thursday, May 14, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is as follows. May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

[Chair read text of amendment to House]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, May 25, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

I believe the hon. Chief Government Whip is rising on a point of order.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe, if you seek it, you will find agreement to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Accordingly, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper.